lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] slub: Do not assert not having lock in removing freed partial
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Vladimir Davydov wrote:

> > @@ -2906,12 +2916,10 @@ static void early_kmem_cache_node_alloc(
> > inc_slabs_node(kmem_cache_node, node, page->objects);
> >
> > /*
> > - * the lock is for lockdep's sake, not for any actual
> > - * race protection
> > + * No locks need to be taken here as it has just been
> > + * initialized and there is no concurrent access.
> > */
> > - spin_lock(&n->list_lock);
> > - add_partial(n, page, DEACTIVATE_TO_HEAD);
> > - spin_unlock(&n->list_lock);
> > + __add_partial(n, page, DEACTIVATE_TO_HEAD);
> > }

Ahh.. Much better.

Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-06 17:21    [W:0.047 / U:3.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site