[PATCH] slub: Hold list_lock unconditionally before the call toadd_full.

[Gautham R Shenoy]

Hi,

>From the lockdep annotation and the comment that existed before the
lockdep annotations were introduced, 
mm/slub.c:add_full(s, n, page) expects to be called with n->list_lock
held.

However, there's a call path in deactivate_slab() when

	 (new.inuse || n->nr_partial <= s->min_partial) &&
	 !(new.freelist) &&
         !(kmem_cache_debug(s))

which ends up calling add_full() without holding
n->list_lock.

This was discovered while onlining/offlining cpus in 3.14-rc1 due to
the lockdep annotations added by commit
c65c1877bd6826ce0d9713d76e30a7bed8e49f38.

Fix this by unconditionally taking the lock
irrespective of the state of kmem_cache_debug(s).

Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <ego@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
 mm/slub.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
index 7e3e045..1f723f7 100644
--- a/mm/slub.c
+++ b/mm/slub.c
@@ -1882,7 +1882,7 @@ redo:
 		}
 	} else {
 		m = M_FULL;
-		if (kmem_cache_debug(s) && !lock) {
+		if (!lock) {
 			lock = 1;
 			/*
 			 * This also ensures that the scanning of full
-- 
1.8.3.1

--
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/