lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: 2.6.27-rc4-git1: Reported regressions from 2.6.26


    On Sat, 23 Aug 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
    >
    > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11410
    > Subject : SLUB list_lock vs obj_hash.lock...
    > Submitter : Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@gmail.com>
    > Date : 2008-08-22 21:48 (2 days old)
    > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121944176609042&w=4

    This one now has a suggested patch for Daniel to try from Vegard, but no
    reply yet:

    http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121946972307110&w=4

    Vegard, I think your patch is a bit odd, though. The result of your patch
    is

    - first loop:

    hlist_for_each_entry_safe(obj, node, tmp, &db->list, node) {
    hlist_del(&obj->node);
    hlist_add_head(&obj->node, &freelist);
    }

    and quite frankly, I don't see what the difference between that and a
    something like a simple

    struct hlist_node *first = bd->list.first;
    if (first) {
    bd->list.first = NULL;
    first->pprev = &first;
    }

    really is?

    I dunno. We don't have list splicing ops for the hlist things.

    Linus


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-08-24 20:07    [W:0.028 / U:1.384 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site