On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 11:23 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 11:11 -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 14:52 +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> > > > +static inline void
> > > > +ckrm_clear_page_class(struct page *page)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct ckrm_zone *czone = page_ckrmzone(page);
> > > > + if (czone == NULL)
> > > > + return;
> > > > + sub_use_count(czone->memcls, 0, page_zonenum(page), 1);
> > > > + kref_put(&czone->memcls->nr_users, memclass_release);
> > > > + set_page_ckrmzone(page, NULL);
> > > > }
> > >
> > > are you sure if it's safe?
> > > this function is called with zone->lock held,
> > > and memclass_release calls kfree.
> >
> > i don't understand why you think it is a problem to call kfree with lock
> > held( i agree calling kmalloc with wait flag when a lock is being held
> > is not correct).
>
> kfree->__cache_free
> ->cache_flusharray
> ->free_block
> ->slab_destroy
> ->kmem_freepages
> ->free_pages
> ->__free_pages
> ->__free_pages_ok
> ->free_pages_bulk:
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags);
>
Oh.... I did not realize Takashi was mentioning zone->lock... i assumed
zone->lru_lock...
memory controller does not use zone->lock, it only uses zone->lru_lock..
I 'll look thru to see if that leads to a deadlock...
> Deadlock.
>
> Whew!!!
>
> -- Dave
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chandra Seetharaman | Be careful what you choose....
- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | .......you may get it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to
speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click
_______________________________________________
ckrm-tech mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
