Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 5 Feb 2014 12:32:43 -0800 (PST) | From | David Rientjes <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] slub: fix false-positive lockdep warning in free_partial() |
| |
On Wed, 5 Feb 2014, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Commit c65c1877bd68 ("slub: use lockdep_assert_held") requires > > remove_partial() to be called with n->list_lock held, but free_partial() > > called from kmem_cache_close() on cache destruction does not follow this > > rule, leading to a warning: > > > > WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 2787 at mm/slub.c:1536 __kmem_cache_shutdown+0x1b2/0x1f0() > > Modules linked in: > > CPU: 0 PID: 2787 Comm: modprobe Tainted: G W 3.14.0-rc1-mm1+ #1 > > Hardware name: > > 0000000000000600 ffff88003ae1dde8 ffffffff816d9583 0000000000000600 > > 0000000000000000 ffff88003ae1de28 ffffffff8107c107 0000000000000000 > > ffff880037ab2b00 ffff88007c240d30 ffffea0001ee5280 ffffea0001ee52a0 > > Call Trace: > > [<ffffffff816d9583>] dump_stack+0x51/0x6e > > [<ffffffff8107c107>] warn_slowpath_common+0x87/0xb0 > > [<ffffffff8107c145>] warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x20 > > [<ffffffff811c7fe2>] __kmem_cache_shutdown+0x1b2/0x1f0 > > [<ffffffff811908d3>] kmem_cache_destroy+0x43/0xf0 > > [<ffffffffa013a123>] xfs_destroy_zones+0x103/0x110 [xfs] > > [<ffffffffa0192b54>] exit_xfs_fs+0x38/0x4e4 [xfs] > > [<ffffffff811036fa>] SyS_delete_module+0x19a/0x1f0 > > [<ffffffff816dfcd8>] ? retint_swapgs+0x13/0x1b > > [<ffffffff810d2125>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x105/0x1d0 > > [<ffffffff81359efe>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f > > [<ffffffff816e8539>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b > > > > Although this cannot actually result in a race, because on cache > > destruction there should not be any concurrent frees or allocations from > > the cache, let's add spin_lock/unlock to free_partial() just to keep > > lockdep happy. > > Really? We are adding a spin lock for a case where it is not needed just to > quiet lockdep? > > Now if it really isn't needed, then why don't we do the following instead of > adding the overhead of taking a lock? >
There's an extremely small overhead of taking this lock, the cache has been destroyed and is the process of being torn down, there will be absolutely no contention on n->list_lock.
| |