Re: [PATCH -mm] slub: update cpu after new_slab()
From: Hugh Dickins
Date: Wed Apr 25 2007 - 12:14:07 EST
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > Right. local_irq_save does not switch off preemption as I thought.
> > Strange comment. Preemption is not possible while IRQs are disabled,
> > but new_slab() rightly reenables them within itself in the __GFP_WAIT
> > case, since it's going off to do a page allocation and may need to wait.
> Yes I expected local_irq_save to increase the preempt count and then
> local_irq_enable to simply enable interrupts without affecting the preempt
> count. Thus the process should stay on the same processor.
> Never thought it would be possible to move to a different processor in mid
But, surely you wouldn't have expected it to stay on the processor
throughout the waiting page allocation?? I think you're misremembering
your expectations, and this was just a simple, understandable, oversight.
Quite a serious one, though: it got caught in my case by the NULL
dereference, but it's probably been switching cpu there much more
often - one cpu diddling with what's private to another, with
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/