Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Sat, 24 Feb 2007 14:53:16 -0800 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: PREEMPT_RCU breaks anon_vma locking ? |
| |
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 10:04:04PM +0000, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Sat, 24 Feb 2007, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > Have you checked through the SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU end in slab.c? > Is what that's doing still valid?
The only thing I see needed due to PREEMPT_RCU is the following comment change.
For a terrified few minutes, I thought that the code assumed that struct rcu_head was the same size as struct list_head, but it turns out to only assume that struct slab is at least as large as struct slab_rcu.
Thanx, Paul
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> ---
diff -urpNa -X dontdiff linux-2.6.20/mm/slab.c linux-2.6.20-slabrcufix/mm/slab.c --- linux-2.6.20/mm/slab.c 2007-02-04 10:44:54.000000000 -0800 +++ linux-2.6.20-slabrcufix/mm/slab.c 2007-02-24 14:50:39.000000000 -0800 @@ -238,7 +238,7 @@ struct slab { * other kind of object (which our subsystem's lock might corrupt). * * rcu_read_lock before reading the address, then rcu_read_unlock after - * taking the spinlock within the structure expected at that address. + * releasing the spinlock within the structure expected at that address. * * We assume struct slab_rcu can overlay struct slab when destroying. */ - 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/
| |