From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail172.messagelabs.com (mail172.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE0FB6B0062 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:33:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: lockdep complaints in slab allocator From: Peter Zijlstra In-Reply-To: <4B0ADEF5.9040001@cs.helsinki.fi> References: <20091118181202.GA12180@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <84144f020911192249l6c7fa495t1a05294c8f5b6ac8@mail.gmail.com> <1258709153.11284.429.camel@laptop> <84144f020911200238w3d3ecb38k92ca595beee31de5@mail.gmail.com> <1258714328.11284.522.camel@laptop> <4B067816.6070304@cs.helsinki.fi> <1258729748.4104.223.camel@laptop> <1259002800.5630.1.camel@penberg-laptop> <1259003425.17871.328.camel@calx> <4B0ADEF5.9040001@cs.helsinki.fi> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:33:26 +0100 Message-ID: <1259080406.4531.1645.camel@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Pekka Enberg Cc: Matt Mackall , paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, cl@linux-foundation.org, LKML , Nick Piggin List-ID: On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 21:13 +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote: > Matt Mackall wrote: > > This seems like a lot of work to paper over a lockdep false positive in > > code that should be firmly in the maintenance end of its lifecycle? I'd > > rather the fix or papering over happen in lockdep. > > True that. Is __raw_spin_lock() out of question, Peter?-) Passing the > state is pretty invasive because of the kmem_cache_free() call in > slab_destroy(). We re-enter the slab allocator from the outer edges > which makes spin_lock_nested() very inconvenient. I'm perfectly fine with letting the thing be as it is, its apparently not something that triggers very often, and since slab will be killed off soon, who cares. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org