Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: lockdep complaints in slab allocator | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:14:19 +0100 |
| |
On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 11:12 -0600, Matt Mackall wrote: > On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 09:00 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > 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? > > I'm guessing your system is in the minority that has more than $10 worth > of RAM, which means you should probably be evaluating SLUB.
Well, I was rather hoping that'd die too ;-)
Weren't we going to go with SLQB?
| |