Re: [PATCH v2] slub: Do not assert not having lock in removing freed partial
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > > @@ -2906,12 +2916,10 @@ static void early_kmem_cache_node_alloc( > > inc_slabs_node(kmem_cache_node, node, page->objects); > > > > /* > > -* the lock is for lockdep's sake, not for any actual > > -* race protection > > +* No locks need to be taken here as it has just been > > +* initialized and there is no concurrent access. > > */ > > - spin_lock(>list_lock); > > - add_partial(n, page, DEACTIVATE_TO_HEAD); > > - spin_unlock(>list_lock); > > + __add_partial(n, page, DEACTIVATE_TO_HEAD); > > } Ahh.. Much better. Acked-by: Christoph Lameter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2] slub: Do not assert not having lock in removing freed partial
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Vladimir Davydov wrote: @@ -2906,12 +2916,10 @@ static void early_kmem_cache_node_alloc( inc_slabs_node(kmem_cache_node, node, page-objects); /* -* the lock is for lockdep's sake, not for any actual -* race protection +* No locks need to be taken here as it has just been +* initialized and there is no concurrent access. */ - spin_lock(n-list_lock); - add_partial(n, page, DEACTIVATE_TO_HEAD); - spin_unlock(n-list_lock); + __add_partial(n, page, DEACTIVATE_TO_HEAD); } Ahh.. Much better. Acked-by: Christoph Lameter c...@linux.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2] slub: Do not assert not having lock in removing freed partial
On 02/06/2014 07:21 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Vladimir reported the following issue:
>
> Commit c65c1877bd68 ("slub: use lockdep_assert_held") requires
> remove_partial() to be called with n->list_lock held, but free_partial()
> called from kmem_cache_close() on cache destruction does not follow this
> rule, leading to a warning:
>
> WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 2787 at mm/slub.c:1536
> __kmem_cache_shutdown+0x1b2/0x1f0()
> Modules linked in:
> CPU: 0 PID: 2787 Comm: modprobe Tainted: GW3.14.0-rc1-mm1+ #1
> Hardware name:
>0600 88003ae1dde8 816d9583 0600
> 88003ae1de28 8107c107
>880037ab2b00 88007c240d30 ea0001ee5280 ea0001ee52a0
> Call Trace:
>[] dump_stack+0x51/0x6e
>[] warn_slowpath_common+0x87/0xb0
>[] warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x20
>[] __kmem_cache_shutdown+0x1b2/0x1f0
>[] kmem_cache_destroy+0x43/0xf0
>[] xfs_destroy_zones+0x103/0x110 [xfs]
>[] exit_xfs_fs+0x38/0x4e4 [xfs]
>[] SyS_delete_module+0x19a/0x1f0
>[] ? retint_swapgs+0x13/0x1b
>[] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x105/0x1d0
>[] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
>[] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>
>
> His solution was to add a spinlock in order to quiet lockdep. Although
> there would be no contention to adding the lock, that lock also
> requires disabling of interrupts which will have a larger impact on the
> system.
>
> Instead of adding a spinlock to a location where it is not needed for
> lockdep, make a __remove_partial() function that does not test if
> the list_lock is held, as no one should have it due to it being freed.
>
> Also added a __add_partial() function that does not do the lock validation
> either, as it is not needed for the creation of the cache.
>
> Suggested-by: David Rientjes
> Reported-by: Vladimir Davydov
> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt
>
> Index: linux-trace.git/mm/slub.c
> ===
> --- linux-trace.git.orig/mm/slub.c
> +++ linux-trace.git/mm/slub.c
> @@ -1520,11 +1520,9 @@ static void discard_slab(struct kmem_cac
> /*
> * Management of partially allocated slabs.
> */
> -static inline void add_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n,
> - struct page *page, int tail)
> +static inline void
> +__add_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n, struct page *page, int tail)
> {
> - lockdep_assert_held(>list_lock);
> -
> n->nr_partial++;
> if (tail == DEACTIVATE_TO_TAIL)
> list_add_tail(>lru, >partial);
> @@ -1532,15 +1530,27 @@ static inline void add_partial(struct km
> list_add(>lru, >partial);
> }
>
> -static inline void remove_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n,
> - struct page *page)
> +static inline void add_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n,
> + struct page *page, int tail)
> {
> lockdep_assert_held(>list_lock);
> + __add_partial(n, page, tail);
> +}
>
> +static inline void
> +__remove_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n, struct page *page)
> +{
> list_del(>lru);
> n->nr_partial--;
> }
>
> +static inline void remove_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n,
> + struct page *page)
> +{
> + lockdep_assert_held(>list_lock);
> + __remove_partial(n, page);
> +}
> +
> /*
> * Remove slab from the partial list, freeze it and
> * return the pointer to the freelist.
> @@ -2906,12 +2916,10 @@ static void early_kmem_cache_node_alloc(
> inc_slabs_node(kmem_cache_node, node, page->objects);
>
> /*
> - * the lock is for lockdep's sake, not for any actual
> - * race protection
> + * No locks need to be taken here as it has just been
> + * initialized and there is no concurrent access.
>*/
> - spin_lock(>list_lock);
> - add_partial(n, page, DEACTIVATE_TO_HEAD);
> - spin_unlock(>list_lock);
> + __add_partial(n, page, DEACTIVATE_TO_HEAD);
> }
>
> static void free_kmem_cache_nodes(struct kmem_cache *s)
> @@ -3197,7 +3205,7 @@ static void free_partial(struct kmem_cac
>
> list_for_each_entry_safe(page, h, >partial, lru) {
> if (!page->inuse) {
> - remove_partial(n, page);
> + __remove_partial(n, page);
> discard_slab(s, page);
> } else {
> list_slab_objects(s, page,
Looks neat.
FWIW,
Acked-by: Vladimir Davydov
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2] slub: Do not assert not having lock in removing freed partial
On Wed, 5 Feb 2014, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Vladimir reported the following issue:
>
> Commit c65c1877bd68 ("slub: use lockdep_assert_held") requires
> remove_partial() to be called with n->list_lock held, but free_partial()
> called from kmem_cache_close() on cache destruction does not follow this
> rule, leading to a warning:
>
> WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 2787 at mm/slub.c:1536
> __kmem_cache_shutdown+0x1b2/0x1f0()
> Modules linked in:
> CPU: 0 PID: 2787 Comm: modprobe Tainted: GW3.14.0-rc1-mm1+ #1
> Hardware name:
>0600 88003ae1dde8 816d9583 0600
> 88003ae1de28 8107c107
>880037ab2b00 88007c240d30 ea0001ee5280 ea0001ee52a0
> Call Trace:
>[] dump_stack+0x51/0x6e
>[] warn_slowpath_common+0x87/0xb0
>[] warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x20
>[] __kmem_cache_shutdown+0x1b2/0x1f0
>[] kmem_cache_destroy+0x43/0xf0
>[] xfs_destroy_zones+0x103/0x110 [xfs]
>[] exit_xfs_fs+0x38/0x4e4 [xfs]
>[] SyS_delete_module+0x19a/0x1f0
>[] ? retint_swapgs+0x13/0x1b
>[] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x105/0x1d0
>[] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
>[] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>
>
> His solution was to add a spinlock in order to quiet lockdep. Although
> there would be no contention to adding the lock, that lock also
> requires disabling of interrupts which will have a larger impact on the
> system.
>
> Instead of adding a spinlock to a location where it is not needed for
> lockdep, make a __remove_partial() function that does not test if
> the list_lock is held, as no one should have it due to it being freed.
>
> Also added a __add_partial() function that does not do the lock validation
> either, as it is not needed for the creation of the cache.
>
> Suggested-by: David Rientjes
> Reported-by: Vladimir Davydov
> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt
Acked-by: David Rientjes
Thanks Steven!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH v2] slub: Do not assert not having lock in removing freed partial
Vladimir reported the following issue:
Commit c65c1877bd68 ("slub: use lockdep_assert_held") requires
remove_partial() to be called with n->list_lock held, but free_partial()
called from kmem_cache_close() on cache destruction does not follow this
rule, leading to a warning:
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 2787 at mm/slub.c:1536
__kmem_cache_shutdown+0x1b2/0x1f0()
Modules linked in:
CPU: 0 PID: 2787 Comm: modprobe Tainted: GW3.14.0-rc1-mm1+ #1
Hardware name:
0600 88003ae1dde8 816d9583 0600
88003ae1de28 8107c107
880037ab2b00 88007c240d30 ea0001ee5280 ea0001ee52a0
Call Trace:
[] dump_stack+0x51/0x6e
[] warn_slowpath_common+0x87/0xb0
[] warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x20
[] __kmem_cache_shutdown+0x1b2/0x1f0
[] kmem_cache_destroy+0x43/0xf0
[] xfs_destroy_zones+0x103/0x110 [xfs]
[] exit_xfs_fs+0x38/0x4e4 [xfs]
[] SyS_delete_module+0x19a/0x1f0
[] ? retint_swapgs+0x13/0x1b
[] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x105/0x1d0
[] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
[] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
His solution was to add a spinlock in order to quiet lockdep. Although
there would be no contention to adding the lock, that lock also
requires disabling of interrupts which will have a larger impact on the
system.
Instead of adding a spinlock to a location where it is not needed for
lockdep, make a __remove_partial() function that does not test if
the list_lock is held, as no one should have it due to it being freed.
Also added a __add_partial() function that does not do the lock validation
either, as it is not needed for the creation of the cache.
Suggested-by: David Rientjes
Reported-by: Vladimir Davydov
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt
Index: linux-trace.git/mm/slub.c
===
--- linux-trace.git.orig/mm/slub.c
+++ linux-trace.git/mm/slub.c
@@ -1520,11 +1520,9 @@ static void discard_slab(struct kmem_cac
/*
* Management of partially allocated slabs.
*/
-static inline void add_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n,
- struct page *page, int tail)
+static inline void
+__add_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n, struct page *page, int tail)
{
- lockdep_assert_held(>list_lock);
-
n->nr_partial++;
if (tail == DEACTIVATE_TO_TAIL)
list_add_tail(>lru, >partial);
@@ -1532,15 +1530,27 @@ static inline void add_partial(struct km
list_add(>lru, >partial);
}
-static inline void remove_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n,
- struct page *page)
+static inline void add_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n,
+ struct page *page, int tail)
{
lockdep_assert_held(>list_lock);
+ __add_partial(n, page, tail);
+}
+static inline void
+__remove_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n, struct page *page)
+{
list_del(>lru);
n->nr_partial--;
}
+static inline void remove_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n,
+ struct page *page)
+{
+ lockdep_assert_held(>list_lock);
+ __remove_partial(n, page);
+}
+
/*
* Remove slab from the partial list, freeze it and
* return the pointer to the freelist.
@@ -2906,12 +2916,10 @@ static void early_kmem_cache_node_alloc(
inc_slabs_node(kmem_cache_node, node, page->objects);
/*
-* the lock is for lockdep's sake, not for any actual
-* race protection
+* No locks need to be taken here as it has just been
+* initialized and there is no concurrent access.
*/
- spin_lock(>list_lock);
- add_partial(n, page, DEACTIVATE_TO_HEAD);
- spin_unlock(>list_lock);
+ __add_partial(n, page, DEACTIVATE_TO_HEAD);
}
static void free_kmem_cache_nodes(struct kmem_cache *s)
@@ -3197,7 +3205,7 @@ static void free_partial(struct kmem_cac
list_for_each_entry_safe(page, h, >partial, lru) {
if (!page->inuse) {
- remove_partial(n, page);
+ __remove_partial(n, page);
discard_slab(s, page);
} else {
list_slab_objects(s, page,
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH v2] slub: Do not assert not having lock in removing freed partial
Vladimir reported the following issue:
Commit c65c1877bd68 (slub: use lockdep_assert_held) requires
remove_partial() to be called with n-list_lock held, but free_partial()
called from kmem_cache_close() on cache destruction does not follow this
rule, leading to a warning:
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 2787 at mm/slub.c:1536
__kmem_cache_shutdown+0x1b2/0x1f0()
Modules linked in:
CPU: 0 PID: 2787 Comm: modprobe Tainted: GW3.14.0-rc1-mm1+ #1
Hardware name:
0600 88003ae1dde8 816d9583 0600
88003ae1de28 8107c107
880037ab2b00 88007c240d30 ea0001ee5280 ea0001ee52a0
Call Trace:
[816d9583] dump_stack+0x51/0x6e
[8107c107] warn_slowpath_common+0x87/0xb0
[8107c145] warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x20
[811c7fe2] __kmem_cache_shutdown+0x1b2/0x1f0
[811908d3] kmem_cache_destroy+0x43/0xf0
[a013a123] xfs_destroy_zones+0x103/0x110 [xfs]
[a0192b54] exit_xfs_fs+0x38/0x4e4 [xfs]
[811036fa] SyS_delete_module+0x19a/0x1f0
[816dfcd8] ? retint_swapgs+0x13/0x1b
[810d2125] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x105/0x1d0
[81359efe] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
[816e8539] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
His solution was to add a spinlock in order to quiet lockdep. Although
there would be no contention to adding the lock, that lock also
requires disabling of interrupts which will have a larger impact on the
system.
Instead of adding a spinlock to a location where it is not needed for
lockdep, make a __remove_partial() function that does not test if
the list_lock is held, as no one should have it due to it being freed.
Also added a __add_partial() function that does not do the lock validation
either, as it is not needed for the creation of the cache.
Suggested-by: David Rientjes rient...@google.com
Reported-by: Vladimir Davydov vdavy...@parallels.com
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org
Index: linux-trace.git/mm/slub.c
===
--- linux-trace.git.orig/mm/slub.c
+++ linux-trace.git/mm/slub.c
@@ -1520,11 +1520,9 @@ static void discard_slab(struct kmem_cac
/*
* Management of partially allocated slabs.
*/
-static inline void add_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n,
- struct page *page, int tail)
+static inline void
+__add_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n, struct page *page, int tail)
{
- lockdep_assert_held(n-list_lock);
-
n-nr_partial++;
if (tail == DEACTIVATE_TO_TAIL)
list_add_tail(page-lru, n-partial);
@@ -1532,15 +1530,27 @@ static inline void add_partial(struct km
list_add(page-lru, n-partial);
}
-static inline void remove_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n,
- struct page *page)
+static inline void add_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n,
+ struct page *page, int tail)
{
lockdep_assert_held(n-list_lock);
+ __add_partial(n, page, tail);
+}
+static inline void
+__remove_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n, struct page *page)
+{
list_del(page-lru);
n-nr_partial--;
}
+static inline void remove_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n,
+ struct page *page)
+{
+ lockdep_assert_held(n-list_lock);
+ __remove_partial(n, page);
+}
+
/*
* Remove slab from the partial list, freeze it and
* return the pointer to the freelist.
@@ -2906,12 +2916,10 @@ static void early_kmem_cache_node_alloc(
inc_slabs_node(kmem_cache_node, node, page-objects);
/*
-* the lock is for lockdep's sake, not for any actual
-* race protection
+* No locks need to be taken here as it has just been
+* initialized and there is no concurrent access.
*/
- spin_lock(n-list_lock);
- add_partial(n, page, DEACTIVATE_TO_HEAD);
- spin_unlock(n-list_lock);
+ __add_partial(n, page, DEACTIVATE_TO_HEAD);
}
static void free_kmem_cache_nodes(struct kmem_cache *s)
@@ -3197,7 +3205,7 @@ static void free_partial(struct kmem_cac
list_for_each_entry_safe(page, h, n-partial, lru) {
if (!page-inuse) {
- remove_partial(n, page);
+ __remove_partial(n, page);
discard_slab(s, page);
} else {
list_slab_objects(s, page,
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2] slub: Do not assert not having lock in removing freed partial
On Wed, 5 Feb 2014, Steven Rostedt wrote: Vladimir reported the following issue: Commit c65c1877bd68 (slub: use lockdep_assert_held) requires remove_partial() to be called with n-list_lock held, but free_partial() called from kmem_cache_close() on cache destruction does not follow this rule, leading to a warning: WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 2787 at mm/slub.c:1536 __kmem_cache_shutdown+0x1b2/0x1f0() Modules linked in: CPU: 0 PID: 2787 Comm: modprobe Tainted: GW3.14.0-rc1-mm1+ #1 Hardware name: 0600 88003ae1dde8 816d9583 0600 88003ae1de28 8107c107 880037ab2b00 88007c240d30 ea0001ee5280 ea0001ee52a0 Call Trace: [816d9583] dump_stack+0x51/0x6e [8107c107] warn_slowpath_common+0x87/0xb0 [8107c145] warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x20 [811c7fe2] __kmem_cache_shutdown+0x1b2/0x1f0 [811908d3] kmem_cache_destroy+0x43/0xf0 [a013a123] xfs_destroy_zones+0x103/0x110 [xfs] [a0192b54] exit_xfs_fs+0x38/0x4e4 [xfs] [811036fa] SyS_delete_module+0x19a/0x1f0 [816dfcd8] ? retint_swapgs+0x13/0x1b [810d2125] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x105/0x1d0 [81359efe] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f [816e8539] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b His solution was to add a spinlock in order to quiet lockdep. Although there would be no contention to adding the lock, that lock also requires disabling of interrupts which will have a larger impact on the system. Instead of adding a spinlock to a location where it is not needed for lockdep, make a __remove_partial() function that does not test if the list_lock is held, as no one should have it due to it being freed. Also added a __add_partial() function that does not do the lock validation either, as it is not needed for the creation of the cache. Suggested-by: David Rientjes rient...@google.com Reported-by: Vladimir Davydov vdavy...@parallels.com Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org Acked-by: David Rientjes rient...@google.com Thanks Steven! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2] slub: Do not assert not having lock in removing freed partial
On 02/06/2014 07:21 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
Vladimir reported the following issue:
Commit c65c1877bd68 (slub: use lockdep_assert_held) requires
remove_partial() to be called with n-list_lock held, but free_partial()
called from kmem_cache_close() on cache destruction does not follow this
rule, leading to a warning:
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 2787 at mm/slub.c:1536
__kmem_cache_shutdown+0x1b2/0x1f0()
Modules linked in:
CPU: 0 PID: 2787 Comm: modprobe Tainted: GW3.14.0-rc1-mm1+ #1
Hardware name:
0600 88003ae1dde8 816d9583 0600
88003ae1de28 8107c107
880037ab2b00 88007c240d30 ea0001ee5280 ea0001ee52a0
Call Trace:
[816d9583] dump_stack+0x51/0x6e
[8107c107] warn_slowpath_common+0x87/0xb0
[8107c145] warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x20
[811c7fe2] __kmem_cache_shutdown+0x1b2/0x1f0
[811908d3] kmem_cache_destroy+0x43/0xf0
[a013a123] xfs_destroy_zones+0x103/0x110 [xfs]
[a0192b54] exit_xfs_fs+0x38/0x4e4 [xfs]
[811036fa] SyS_delete_module+0x19a/0x1f0
[816dfcd8] ? retint_swapgs+0x13/0x1b
[810d2125] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x105/0x1d0
[81359efe] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
[816e8539] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
His solution was to add a spinlock in order to quiet lockdep. Although
there would be no contention to adding the lock, that lock also
requires disabling of interrupts which will have a larger impact on the
system.
Instead of adding a spinlock to a location where it is not needed for
lockdep, make a __remove_partial() function that does not test if
the list_lock is held, as no one should have it due to it being freed.
Also added a __add_partial() function that does not do the lock validation
either, as it is not needed for the creation of the cache.
Suggested-by: David Rientjes rient...@google.com
Reported-by: Vladimir Davydov vdavy...@parallels.com
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org
Index: linux-trace.git/mm/slub.c
===
--- linux-trace.git.orig/mm/slub.c
+++ linux-trace.git/mm/slub.c
@@ -1520,11 +1520,9 @@ static void discard_slab(struct kmem_cac
/*
* Management of partially allocated slabs.
*/
-static inline void add_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n,
- struct page *page, int tail)
+static inline void
+__add_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n, struct page *page, int tail)
{
- lockdep_assert_held(n-list_lock);
-
n-nr_partial++;
if (tail == DEACTIVATE_TO_TAIL)
list_add_tail(page-lru, n-partial);
@@ -1532,15 +1530,27 @@ static inline void add_partial(struct km
list_add(page-lru, n-partial);
}
-static inline void remove_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n,
- struct page *page)
+static inline void add_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n,
+ struct page *page, int tail)
{
lockdep_assert_held(n-list_lock);
+ __add_partial(n, page, tail);
+}
+static inline void
+__remove_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n, struct page *page)
+{
list_del(page-lru);
n-nr_partial--;
}
+static inline void remove_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n,
+ struct page *page)
+{
+ lockdep_assert_held(n-list_lock);
+ __remove_partial(n, page);
+}
+
/*
* Remove slab from the partial list, freeze it and
* return the pointer to the freelist.
@@ -2906,12 +2916,10 @@ static void early_kmem_cache_node_alloc(
inc_slabs_node(kmem_cache_node, node, page-objects);
/*
- * the lock is for lockdep's sake, not for any actual
- * race protection
+ * No locks need to be taken here as it has just been
+ * initialized and there is no concurrent access.
*/
- spin_lock(n-list_lock);
- add_partial(n, page, DEACTIVATE_TO_HEAD);
- spin_unlock(n-list_lock);
+ __add_partial(n, page, DEACTIVATE_TO_HEAD);
}
static void free_kmem_cache_nodes(struct kmem_cache *s)
@@ -3197,7 +3205,7 @@ static void free_partial(struct kmem_cac
list_for_each_entry_safe(page, h, n-partial, lru) {
if (!page-inuse) {
- remove_partial(n, page);
+ __remove_partial(n, page);
discard_slab(s, page);
} else {
list_slab_objects(s, page,
Looks neat.
FWIW,
Acked-by: Vladimir Davydov vdavy...@parallels.com
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
