[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:0.021 / U:175.476 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site