Re: [PATCH] slub: Do not assert not having lock in removing freedpartial

[David Rientjes]

On Wed, 5 Feb 2014, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> > We'll want to do something similiar for the add_partial() called from
> > early_kmem_cache_node_alloc(), right?  It had the added n->list_lock for 
> > the same reason and is done during early init where nobody else can be 
> > referencing a kmem_cache_node.
> > 
> > It would probably be better to define these in terms of "partial slabs 
> > that cannot have anyone else accessing it" rather than "freed slabs".
> 
> Perhaps then we just use the __remove_partial() and __add_partial()
> that does not do the checks. That's common practice to use a "__" to
> denote that it's special and usually doesn't require locking.
> 

Sounds appropriate.  Andrew released a mmotm today so I'm assuming it will 
be in linux-next tomorrow with my {add,remove}_full() patch but it 
shouldn't matter if you're going to be playing with 
{add,remove}_partial().
--
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/