On Nov 17, 2007 8:33 PM, Christoph Lameter <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > That's slub. It appears that list_lock is being taken from process context
> > in one place and from softirq in another.
>
> I kicked out some weird interrupt disable code in mm that was only run during
> NUMA bootstrap.
I'm using NUMA (Opteron), so this indeed fixes it.
A kernel complied with SLUB now outputs the same message as the SLAB
one, that lockdep annotations are needed at the place where nfs hangs.
> This should fix it but isnt there some mechanism to convince lockdep that
> it is okay to do these things during bootstrap?
>
> ---
> mm/slub.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> Index: linux-2.6/mm/slub.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/mm/slub.c 2007-11-17 11:31:21.044136631 -0800
> +++ linux-2.6/mm/slub.c 2007-11-17 11:32:17.364386560 -0800
> @@ -2044,7 +2044,9 @@ static struct kmem_cache_node *early_kme
> #endif
> init_kmem_cache_node(n);
> atomic_long_inc(&n->nr_slabs);
> + local_irq_disable();
> add_partial(kmalloc_caches, page, 0);
> + local_irq_enable();
> return n;
> }
>
>
>
-
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]
