On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 12:44 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 11:18 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > ---
> > > > mm/slab.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> > >
> > > geeze, what fuss. Can't we just tell lockdep "the locking here is
> > > correct, so buzz off"?
> >
> > well, lockdep already found a locking bug in slab.c, so by telling
> > lockdep to buzz off we lose the proof of correctness :-)
> >
> > but i agree that this is getting a bit too intrusive. This patch is
> > really just another expression of: 'slab locking is too complex', but i
> > digress. Not all hope is lost though: Arjan thinks he can do a much
> > simpler annotation.
>
>
> I am hoping I can get away with just this patch; the idea is to give the
> cache_cache slab a special lock type since it'll be nested all the time
> (and has a natural ordering due to it's special position in the slab
> code). I'm not yet sure I found all places where this stuff is
> initialized (the slab code has gotten terribly complex with all the numa
> stuff added to it); I've started to test this now at least and so far it
> seems to work on my test box.
>
fwiw the slab where off-slab datastructures get stored needs this
treatment as well, I've yet to decipher the slab code where this slab is
though ;)
-
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]
