Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 13 Jul 2006 00:28:03 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: Random panics seen in 2.6.18-rc1 |
| |
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:12:21 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> 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.
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). - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |