Re: lockdep complaints in slab allocator

[Paul E. McKenney]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/