Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:51:09 -0700 (PDT) | From | Christoph Lameter <> | Subject | Re: [patch] lockdep: annotate mm/slab.c |
| |
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> [*] Note Note Note > there is a corner case in the slab code that I personally don't trust at > all. In the NUMA case, if the memory is not originally from your own > node, the cache_free_alien() function takes, while having your own local > lock, the lock of the remote node as well. (at least on my reading of > the code) to free the memory to that node. I have yet to see where in > the code it safeguards against that remote node doing the exact same > thing in the opposite direction concurrently, and causing a basic ABBA > deadlock.
Second look: I cannot find where we take our own local nodes list_lock. We only take the lock from the remote node. Or is this related to the OFF_SLAB kfree issue?
We either have a alien cache structure established then:
We take a lock on the alien structure for node x from our own node (without holding our local list_lock!) and then we need take the remote list_lock for node x if the alien structure overflows and we then free to the remote nodes list.
Or we do not have a alien cache structure established yet. Then:
We simply take the remote list_lock on node x and free directly to the foreign nodes list.
In an OFF_SLAB situation this may differ because then we call kmem_cache_free from slab_destroy. Ughhh... This looks extremely bad. Whew! We drop the list lock before calling slab_destroy.
- 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/
| |