Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 5 Feb 2014 20:06:32 -0500 | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] slub: Do not assert not having lock in removing freed partial |
| |
On Wed, 5 Feb 2014 16:46:43 -0800 (PST) David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote:
> > +/* > > + * The difference between remove_partial and remove_freed_partial > > + * is that remove_freed_partial happens only on a a freed slab > > Duplicate "a" there.
oops.
> > > + * that should not have anyone accessing it, and thus does not > > + * require the n->list_lock. > > + */ > > +static inline void remove_freed_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n, > > + struct page *page) > > +{ > > + __remove_partial(n, page); > > } > > > > /* > > @@ -3195,7 +3212,7 @@ static void free_partial(struct kmem_cac > > > > list_for_each_entry_safe(page, h, &n->partial, lru) { > > if (!page->inuse) { > > - remove_partial(n, page); > > + remove_freed_partial(n, page); > > discard_slab(s, page); > > } else { > > list_slab_objects(s, page, > > We'll want to do something similiar for the add_partial() called from > early_kmem_cache_node_alloc(), right? It had the added n->list_lock for > the same reason and is done during early init where nobody else can be > referencing a kmem_cache_node. > > It would probably be better to define these in terms of "partial slabs > that cannot have anyone else accessing it" rather than "freed slabs".
Perhaps then we just use the __remove_partial() and __add_partial() that does not do the checks. That's common practice to use a "__" to denote that it's special and usually doesn't require locking.
-- Steve
| |