On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> [*] Note Note Note
> there is a corner case in the slab code that I personally don't trust at
> all. In the NUMA case, if the memory is not originally from your own
> node, the cache_free_alien() function takes, while having your own local
> lock, the lock of the remote node as well. (at least on my reading of
> the code) to free the memory to that node. I have yet to see where in
> the code it safeguards against that remote node doing the exact same
> thing in the opposite direction concurrently, and causing a basic ABBA
> deadlock.
Second look: I cannot find where we take our own local nodes list_lock.
We only take the lock from the remote node. Or is this related to the
OFF_SLAB kfree issue?
We either have a alien cache structure established then:
We take a lock on the alien structure for node x from our own node
(without holding our local list_lock!) and then we need take the remote
list_lock for node x if the alien structure overflows and we then free
to the remote nodes list.
Or we do not have a alien cache structure established yet. Then:
We simply take the remote list_lock on node x and free directly to the
foreign nodes list.
In an OFF_SLAB situation this may differ because then we call
kmem_cache_free from slab_destroy. Ughhh... This looks extremely bad.
Whew! We drop the list lock before calling slab_destroy.
-
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]
