Re: lockdep complaints in slab allocator

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 11:12 -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 09:00 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 05:33:26PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Which of the alternatives to slab should I be testing with, then?
> 
> I'm guessing your system is in the minority that has more than $10 worth
> of RAM, which means you should probably be evaluating SLUB.

Well, I was rather hoping that'd die too ;-)

Weren't we going to go with SLQB?

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>