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

[David Rientjes]

On Wed, 5 Feb 2014, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> Then add the comment that clears this up. But lets not add spinlocks
> just to quiet something if they truly are not needed.
> 
> We use "__" variants all the time. That's really not extra code.
> 
> Heck, if you want, call it remove_freed_partial() that shows that this
> version skips the check because it is freed.
> 
> And if you don't want to have remove_freed_partial() being called by
> remove_partial() than still keep the "__" variant, add a
> "__always_inline" to it, and then do:
> 
> static __always_inline
> __remove_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n, struct page *page)
> {
>         list_del(&page->lru);
>         n->nr_partial--;
> }
> 
> static inline remove_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n,
>                              struct page *page)
> {
>         lockdep_assert_held(&n->list_lock);
>         __remove_partial(n, page);
> }
> 
> 
> static inline remove_freed_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n,
>                              struct page *page)
> {
>         __remove_partial(n, page);
> }
> 
> The naming like this documents itself.
> 

Looks like you've got something prepared already!  Mind sending it to 
Pekka as a patch based on linux-next?
--
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/