Re: [PATCH v3] slub: fix false-positive lockdep warning infree_partial()

[David Rientjes]

On Wed, 5 Feb 2014, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> > 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.
> 
> But why add it if it isn't necessary? You're even disabling interrupts,
> which means that you add to the response latency. That is, this change
> does affect other aspects of the kernel!
> 

The functions that manipulate the partial lists was modified by 
c65c1877bd68 ("slub: use lockdep_assert_held") which replaced commentary 
with runtime checking on debug kernels with lockdep enabled.  I'm not sure 
adding more code to do the remove_partial() and __remove_partial() variant 
is the right solution to just bypass the check; if anything, I think we 
should accept the fact that the comment should have been "requires 
n->list_lock if the slab cache can be accessed by other cpus" that makes 
it clear we don't need it for init and destroy paths.
--
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/