On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 03:19:39PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> > Well, no. Look at the callchain:
> >
> > __call_rcu
> > debug_object_activate
> > rcuhead_fixup_activate
> > debug_object_init
> > kmem_cache_alloc
> >
> > So call rcu activates the object, but the object has no reference in
> > the debug objects code so the fixup code is called which inits the
> > object and allocates a reference ....
>
> So we need to init the object in the page struct before the __call_rcu?
Good point. The patch I just sent will complain at callback-invocation
time because the debug-object information won't be present.
One way to handle this would be for rcu_do_batch() to avoid complaining
if it gets a callback that has not been through call_rcu()'s
debug_rcu_head_queue(). One way to do that would be to have an
alternative to debug_object_deactivate() that does not complain
if it is handed an unactivated object.
Another way to handle this would be for me to put the definition of
debug_rcu_head_queue() somewhere where the sl*b allocator could get
at it, and have the sl*b allocators invoke it some at initialization
and within the RCU callback.
Other thoughts?
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
