From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 12:35:30 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [patch 3/3] mm: NUMA slab -- minor optimizations In-Reply-To: <43B07FE9.4000803@colorfullife.com> Message-ID: References: <20051129085049.GA3573@localhost.localdomain> <20051129085456.GC3573@localhost.localdomain> <43B07FE9.4000803@colorfullife.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Manfred Spraul Cc: Ravikiran G Thirumalai , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, Alok Kataria List-ID: On Tue, 27 Dec 2005, Manfred Spraul wrote: > Isn't that a bug? What prevents an interrupt from occuring after the > spin_lock() and then causing a deadlock on cachep->spinlock? Right. cache_grow() may be called when doing slab allocations in an interrupt and it takes the lock in order to modify colour_next. -- 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