Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Mon, 3 Feb 2014 15:44:00 -0800 (PST) | From | David Rientjes <> | Subject | [patch for-3.14] mm, slub: list_lock may not be held in some circumstances |
| |
Commit c65c1877bd68 ("slub: use lockdep_assert_held") incorrectly required that add_full() and remove_full() hold n->list_lock. The lock is only taken when kmem_cache_debug(s), since that's the only time it actually does anything.
Require that the lock only be taken under such a condition.
Reported-by: Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> Tested-by: Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> Tested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com> Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> --- mm/slub.c | 6 ++---- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c --- a/mm/slub.c +++ b/mm/slub.c @@ -1004,21 +1004,19 @@ static inline void slab_free_hook(struct kmem_cache *s, void *x) static void add_full(struct kmem_cache *s, struct kmem_cache_node *n, struct page *page) { - lockdep_assert_held(&n->list_lock); - if (!(s->flags & SLAB_STORE_USER)) return; + lockdep_assert_held(&n->list_lock); list_add(&page->lru, &n->full); } static void remove_full(struct kmem_cache *s, struct kmem_cache_node *n, struct page *page) { - lockdep_assert_held(&n->list_lock); - if (!(s->flags & SLAB_STORE_USER)) return; + lockdep_assert_held(&n->list_lock); list_del(&page->lru); }
| |