Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933644AbZKXRAc (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:00:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933601AbZKXRAb (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:00:31 -0500 Received: from e9.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.139]:51534 "EHLO e9.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933579AbZKXRAa (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:00:30 -0500 Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:00:32 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Pekka Enberg , Matt Mackall , linux-mm@kvack.org, cl@linux-foundation.org, LKML , Nick Piggin Subject: Re: lockdep complaints in slab allocator Message-ID: <20091124170032.GC6831@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <84144f020911192249l6c7fa495t1a05294c8f5b6ac8@mail.gmail.com> <1258709153.11284.429.camel@laptop> <84144f020911200238w3d3ecb38k92ca595beee31de5@mail.gmail.com> <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1259080406.4531.1645.camel@laptop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1159 Lines: 26 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? [Ducks, runs away.] Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/