* Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:12:21 +0200
> Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Chandra Seetharaman reported SLAB crashes caused by the slab.c
> > lock annotation patch. There is only one chunk of that patch
> > that has a material effect on the slab logic - this patch
> > undoes that chunk.
> >
>
> yup.
>
> > ---
> > mm/slab.c | 9 ---------
> > 1 file changed, 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: linux/mm/slab.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux.orig/mm/slab.c
> > +++ linux/mm/slab.c
> > @@ -3100,16 +3100,7 @@ static void free_block(struct kmem_cache
> > if (slabp->inuse == 0) {
> > if (l3->free_objects > l3->free_limit) {
> > l3->free_objects -= cachep->num;
> > - /*
> > - * It is safe to drop the lock. The slab is
> > - * no longer linked to the cache. cachep
> > - * cannot disappear - we are using it and
> > - * all destruction of caches must be
> > - * serialized properly by the user.
> > - */
> > - spin_unlock(&l3->list_lock);
> > slab_destroy(cachep, slabp);
> > - spin_lock(&l3->list_lock);
>
> But what was that change _for_? Presumably, to plug some lockdep
> problem. Which now will come back.
correct - but i first wanted to get the fix out, before trying to fix
the lockdep thing.
> And the additional arg to __cache_free() was rather a step backwards -
> this is fastpath. With a bit more effort that could have been avoided
> (please).
yeah, i'll fix this. Any suggestions of how to avoid the parameter
passing? (without ugly #ifdeffery)
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
