Re: [PATCH v2] slub: Do not assert not having lock in removing freedpartial

[Christoph Lameter]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Vladimir Davydov wrote:

> > @@ -2906,12 +2916,10 @@ static void early_kmem_cache_node_alloc(
> >  	inc_slabs_node(kmem_cache_node, node, page->objects);
> >
> >  	/*
> > -	 * the lock is for lockdep's sake, not for any actual
> > -	 * race protection
> > +	 * No locks need to be taken here as it has just been
> > +	 * initialized and there is no concurrent access.
> >  	 */
> > -	spin_lock(&n->list_lock);
> > -	add_partial(n, page, DEACTIVATE_TO_HEAD);
> > -	spin_unlock(&n->list_lock);
> > +	__add_partial(n, page, DEACTIVATE_TO_HEAD);
> >  }

Ahh.. Much better.

Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx>

--
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/