> >[...] However, it might break slab.
> >If I am not mistaken, slab code initializes multiple objects in
> >CPU_UP_PREPARE and relies on the CPU_UP_CANCELLED to destroy the
> >objects which successfully got initialized before the some object's
> >initialization went bad.
>
> My testing machine is ordinary dual core non numa box. So it might not
> trigger the problem that you are warried about under heavy slab alloc
> failure injection.
>
> At first glance I couln't find the problem in cpu hottplug code in slab.c
> yet,
> but found some memory leak path. (it doesn't break slab though)
That's what I meant. I shouldn't have used the word "break" :-)
In case of slab, freeing up of resources on an error during CPU_UP_PREPARE,
is currently handled in CPU_UP_CANCELLED.
But, like you reasoned out, it makes more sense for such a subsystem
to free up all the correctly allocated resources before sending a
NOTIFY_BAD, rather than handling it in CPU_UP_CANCELLED. And slab
needed that fix, which you've provided, before we send the notification
to (nr_calls - 1) callers.
So could you add this patch to series?