Re: [patch] lockdep: annotate mm/slab.c

[Christoph Lameter]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:

> > How would this slab become corrupted if it is no longer on the lists?
> 
> It's a bad sign that this question is flowing in the you->me direction ;)

Take it as a rhetorical question reflecting my lack of details about this 
issue.
> 
> I don't see anywhere under slab_destroy() where *cachep state gets altered.
> 
> The change did cause
> free_block->slab_destroy->__cache_free->cache_free_alien to no longer be
> called under this slab's l3->list_lock.  Maybe that locking is
> (accidentally?) protecting something?

Yes this is also protecting the shared array. It is invalid to use 
free_block on elements of the shared array. It is valid to use free block 
on per cpu arrays since they are protected only by interrupt disable. It 
also valid to use free_block on alien caches because they have their own 
lock.

Still looking.....

-
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/