lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jul]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Random panics seen in 2.6.18-rc1
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:26:35 +0200
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

> >
> > But what was that change _for_? Presumably, to plug some lockdep
> > problem. Which now will come back.
>
> correct - but i first wanted to get the fix out, before trying to fix
> the lockdep thing.

More yup.

> > And the additional arg to __cache_free() was rather a step backwards -
> > this is fastpath. With a bit more effort that could have been avoided
> > (please).
>
> yeah, i'll fix this. Any suggestions of how to avoid the parameter
> passing? (without ugly #ifdeffery)

No, I don't see a way apart from inlining __cache_free(), or inlining
cache_free_alien() into both kfree() and kmem_cache_free(), both of which
are unattractive.

Well. One could do

local_irq_disable();
cachep->array[smp_processor_id()]->lockdep_nested = 1;
__cache_free(...)
cachep->array[smp_processor_id()]->lockdep_nested = 0;
local_irq_enable();

then do lots of ifdeffery to make that go away if !LOCKDEP. But sheesh.
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-07-13 09:47    [W:0.109 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site