Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:25:06 -0800 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: lockdep complaints in slab allocator |
| |
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 07:14:19PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > 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?
Well, I suppose I could make my scripts randomly choose the memory allocator, but I would rather not. ;-)
More seriously, I do have a number of configurations that I test, and I suppose I can chose different allocators for the different configurations.
Thanx, Paul
| |