Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch] lockdep: more annotations for mm/slab.c | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Date | Thu, 13 Jul 2006 12:58:12 +0200 |
| |
On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 12:44 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 11:18 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote: > > > > > > --- > > > > mm/slab.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------- > > > > > > geeze, what fuss. Can't we just tell lockdep "the locking here is > > > correct, so buzz off"? > > > > well, lockdep already found a locking bug in slab.c, so by telling > > lockdep to buzz off we lose the proof of correctness :-) > > > > but i agree that this is getting a bit too intrusive. This patch is > > really just another expression of: 'slab locking is too complex', but i > > digress. Not all hope is lost though: Arjan thinks he can do a much > > simpler annotation. > > > I am hoping I can get away with just this patch; the idea is to give the > cache_cache slab a special lock type since it'll be nested all the time > (and has a natural ordering due to it's special position in the slab > code). I'm not yet sure I found all places where this stuff is > initialized (the slab code has gotten terribly complex with all the numa > stuff added to it); I've started to test this now at least and so far it > seems to work on my test box. >
fwiw the slab where off-slab datastructures get stored needs this treatment as well, I've yet to decipher the slab code where this slab is though ;)
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |