Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 6 Feb 2014 09:36:40 -0600 (CST) | From | Christoph Lameter <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] slub: Do not assert not having lock in removing freed partial |
| |
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > @@ -2906,12 +2916,10 @@ static void early_kmem_cache_node_alloc( > > inc_slabs_node(kmem_cache_node, node, page->objects); > > > > /* > > - * the lock is for lockdep's sake, not for any actual > > - * race protection > > + * No locks need to be taken here as it has just been > > + * initialized and there is no concurrent access. > > */ > > - spin_lock(&n->list_lock); > > - add_partial(n, page, DEACTIVATE_TO_HEAD); > > - spin_unlock(&n->list_lock); > > + __add_partial(n, page, DEACTIVATE_TO_HEAD); > > }
Ahh.. Much better.
Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
| |