[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 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

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-24 18:03    [W:0.056 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site