From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail190.messagelabs.com (mail190.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E7A46B004D for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:25:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from d01relay05.pok.ibm.com (d01relay05.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.237]) by e6.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id nAOIUqu1029398 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:30:52 -0500 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay05.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id nAOIP7GQ122186 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:25:07 -0500 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id nAOIP66u031477 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:25:07 -0500 Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:25:06 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: lockdep complaints in slab allocator Message-ID: <20091124182506.GG6831@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <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> <1259080406.4531.1645.camel@laptop> <20091124170032.GC6831@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1259082756.17871.607.camel@calx> <1259086459.4531.1752.camel@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1259086459.4531.1752.camel@laptop> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Matt Mackall , Pekka Enberg , linux-mm@kvack.org, cl@linux-foundation.org, LKML , Nick Piggin List-ID: On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 07:14:19PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > 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? Well, I suppose I could make my scripts randomly choose the memory allocator, but I would rather not. ;-) More seriously, I do have a number of configurations that I test, and I suppose I can chose different allocators for the different configurations. Thanx, Paul -- 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