Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:00:32 -0800 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: lockdep complaints in slab allocator |
| |
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 05:33:26PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 21:13 +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote: > > Matt Mackall wrote: > > > This seems like a lot of work to paper over a lockdep false positive in > > > code that should be firmly in the maintenance end of its lifecycle? I'd > > > rather the fix or papering over happen in lockdep. > > > > True that. Is __raw_spin_lock() out of question, Peter?-) Passing the > > state is pretty invasive because of the kmem_cache_free() call in > > slab_destroy(). We re-enter the slab allocator from the outer edges > > which makes spin_lock_nested() very inconvenient. > > I'm perfectly fine with letting the thing be as it is, its apparently > not something that triggers very often, and since slab will be killed > off soon, who cares.
Which of the alternatives to slab should I be testing with, then?
[Ducks, runs away.]
Thanx, Paul
| |