lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] slub: Do not assert not having lock in removing freed partial
On Wed, 5 Feb 2014, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> > 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.
>

Sounds appropriate. Andrew released a mmotm today so I'm assuming it will
be in linux-next tomorrow with my {add,remove}_full() patch but it
shouldn't matter if you're going to be playing with
{add,remove}_partial().


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-06 03:01    [W:0.025 / U:0.940 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site