Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:47:40 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
       cl@linux-foundation.org, mpm@selenic.com,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Subject: Re: lockdep complaints in slab allocator
Message-ID: <20091124214740.GJ6831@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20091118181202.GA12180@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <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> <20091124162311.GA8679@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <84144f020911241259r3a604b29yb59902655ec03a20@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <84144f020911241259r3a604b29yb59902655ec03a20@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2038
Lines: 44

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:59:44PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 09:00:00PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> >> Hi Peter,
> >>
> >> On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 16:09 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> > > Uh, ok, so apparently I was right after all. There's a comment in
> >> > > free_block() above the slab_destroy() call that refers to the comment
> >> > > above alloc_slabmgmt() function definition which explains it all.
> >> > >
> >> > > Long story short: ->slab_cachep never points to the same kmalloc cache
> >> > > we're allocating or freeing from. Where do we need to put the
> >> > > spin_lock_nested() annotation? Would it be enough to just use it in
> >> > > cache_free_alien() for alien->lock or do we need it in
> >> > > cache_flusharray() as well?
> >> >
> >> > You'd have to somehow push the nested state down from the
> >> > kmem_cache_free() call in slab_destroy() to all nc->lock sites below.
> >>
> >> That turns out to be _very_ hard. How about something like the following
> >> untested patch which delays slab_destroy() while we're under nc->lock.
> >>
> >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Pekka
> >
> > Preliminary tests look good! ?The test was a ten-hour rcutorture run on
> > an 8-CPU Power system with a half-second delay between randomly chosen
> > CPU-hotplug operations. ?No lockdep warnings. ?;-)
> >
> > Will keep hammering on it.
> 
> Thanks! Please let me know when you're hammered it enough :-). Peter,
> may I have your ACK or NAK on the patch, please?

I expect to hammer it over the USA Thanksgiving holiday Thu-Sun this week.
It is like this, Pekka: since I don't drink, it is instead your code
that is going to get hammered this weekend!

							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/