lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] slub: fix false-positive lockdep warning in free_partial()
On Wed, 5 Feb 2014, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> Then add the comment that clears this up. But lets not add spinlocks
> just to quiet something if they truly are not needed.
>
> We use "__" variants all the time. That's really not extra code.
>
> Heck, if you want, call it remove_freed_partial() that shows that this
> version skips the check because it is freed.
>
> And if you don't want to have remove_freed_partial() being called by
> remove_partial() than still keep the "__" variant, add a
> "__always_inline" to it, and then do:
>
> static __always_inline
> __remove_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n, struct page *page)
> {
> list_del(&page->lru);
> n->nr_partial--;
> }
>
> static inline remove_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n,
> struct page *page)
> {
> lockdep_assert_held(&n->list_lock);
> __remove_partial(n, page);
> }
>
>
> static inline remove_freed_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n,
> struct page *page)
> {
> __remove_partial(n, page);
> }
>
> The naming like this documents itself.
>

Looks like you've got something prepared already! Mind sending it to
Pekka as a patch based on linux-next?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-05 23:01    [W:0.089 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site