[lkml]   [2006]   [Jul]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch] lockdep: annotate mm/slab.c

    * Pekka Enberg <> wrote:

    > Hi,
    > On 7/13/06, Ingo Molnar <> wrote:
    > >mm/slab.c uses nested locking when dealing with 'off-slab'
    > >caches, in that case it allocates the slab header from the
    > >(on-slab) kmalloc caches. Teach the lock validator about
    > >this by putting all on-slab caches into a separate class.
    > Which lock is that? This affects only caches that cache_grow() use, so
    > we are really only interested in annotating kmalloc() on-slab caches
    > (like in the patch), not _all_, right?

    it's ->list_lock, and a sample nesting scenario is:

    [<c013a9a8>] lock_acquire+0x78/0xa0
    [<c0313e5a>] _spin_lock_nested+0x2a/0x40
    [<c0163024>] __cache_free+0x484/0x5c0
    [<c01632ad>] slab_destroy+0x14d/0x1e0
    [<c0162ac9>] free_block+0x189/0x1e0
    [<c01630f4>] __cache_free+0x554/0x5c0
    [<c0163653>] kmem_cache_free+0x73/0xc0
    [<c016a24f>] file_free_rcu+0xf/0x20
    [<c0130755>] __rcu_process_callbacks+0x75/0x1b0
    [<c0130bc7>] rcu_process_callbacks+0x27/0x50
    [<c0123f3a>] tasklet_action+0x6a/0xf0
    [<c012413b>] __do_softirq+0x8b/0x130
    [<c0106ba3>] do_softirq+0x73/0x100

    (the off-slab nesting is perfectly correct locking code AFAICS - it just
    needs to be taught to lockdep - which the patch does. OTOH i'm less sure
    about the NUMA alien-cache-draining nesting.)

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-07-13 22:03    [W:0.021 / U:9.012 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site