From: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
To: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
Cc: Julie Sullivan <kernelmail.jms@gmail.com>,
Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@gmail.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: INFO: possible recursive locking detected: get_partial_node() on 3.2-rc1
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 09:02:08 -0600 (CST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1111110857330.3557@router.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1320980671.22361.252.camel@sli10-conroe>
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011, Shaohua Li wrote:
> Looks this could be a real dead lock. we hold a lock to free a object,
> but the free need allocate a new object. if the new object and the freed
> object are from the same slab, there is a deadlock.
unfreeze partials is never called when going through get_partial_node()
so there is no deadlock AFAICT.
> discard_slab() doesn't need hold the lock if the slab is already removed
> from partial list. how about below patch, only compile tested.
In general I think it is good to move the call to discard_slab() out from
under the list_lock in unfreeze_partials(). Could you fold
discard_page_list into unfreeze_partials()? __flush_cpu_slab still calls
discard_page_list with disabled interrupts even after your patch.
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-11-11 15:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20111109090556.GA5949@zhy>
2011-11-10 23:35 ` Julie Sullivan
2011-11-11 3:04 ` Shaohua Li
2011-11-11 4:42 ` Yong Zhang
2011-11-11 14:57 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-11-11 15:02 ` Christoph Lameter [this message]
2011-11-11 19:09 ` Julie Sullivan
2011-11-11 19:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-11-14 5:34 ` Shaohua Li
2011-11-15 7:22 ` Yong Zhang
2011-11-15 18:49 ` Pekka Enberg
2011-11-15 16:02 ` Christoph Lameter
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.DEB.2.00.1111110857330.3557@router.home \
--to=cl@linux.com \
--cc=kernelmail.jms@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=shaohua.li@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=yong.zhang0@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox