From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AD8EA6B01B9 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:46:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:47:09 -0500 (CDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: kmem_cache_destroy() badness with SLUB In-Reply-To: <1277688701.4200.159.camel@pasglop> Message-ID: References: <1277688701.4200.159.camel@pasglop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" List-ID: On Mon, 28 Jun 2010, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > So if the slab is created -and- destroyed at, for example, arch_initcall > time, then we hit a WARN in the kobject code, trying to dispose of a > non-existing kobject. Yes dont do that. > Now, at first sight, just adding the same test to sysfs_slab_remove() > would do the job... but it all seems very racy to me. Yes lets leave as is. Dont remove slabs during boot. > Shouldn't we have a mutex around those guys ? At boot time? -- 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