lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: lockdep complaints in slab allocator
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.

> Introducing extra cacheline pressure by passing to_destroy around also
> seems like a good way to trickle away SLAB's narrow remaining
> performance advantages.

We can probably fix that to affect CONFIG_NUMA only which sucks already.

Pekka


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-23 20:17    [W:0.111 / U:0.500 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site