[PATCH] slub: Do not assert not having lock in removing freedpartial

From: Steven Rostedt
Date: Wed Feb 05 2014 - 19:24:23 EST

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: G W 3.14.0-rc1-mm1+ #1
Hardware name:
0000000000000600 ffff88003ae1dde8 ffffffff816d9583 0000000000000600
0000000000000000 ffff88003ae1de28 ffffffff8107c107 0000000000000000
ffff880037ab2b00 ffff88007c240d30 ffffea0001ee5280 ffffea0001ee52a0
Call Trace:
[<ffffffff816d9583>] dump_stack+0x51/0x6e
[<ffffffff8107c107>] warn_slowpath_common+0x87/0xb0
[<ffffffff8107c145>] warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x20
[<ffffffff811c7fe2>] __kmem_cache_shutdown+0x1b2/0x1f0
[<ffffffff811908d3>] kmem_cache_destroy+0x43/0xf0
[<ffffffffa013a123>] xfs_destroy_zones+0x103/0x110 [xfs]
[<ffffffffa0192b54>] exit_xfs_fs+0x38/0x4e4 [xfs]
[<ffffffff811036fa>] SyS_delete_module+0x19a/0x1f0
[<ffffffff816dfcd8>] ? retint_swapgs+0x13/0x1b
[<ffffffff810d2125>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x105/0x1d0
[<ffffffff81359efe>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
[<ffffffff816e8539>] 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

Instead of adding a spinlock to a location where it is not needed for
lockdep, make a remove_freed_partial() function that does not test if
the list_lock is held, as no one should have it due to it being freed.

Reported-by: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Index: linux-trace.git/mm/slub.c
--- linux-trace.git.orig/mm/slub.c
+++ linux-trace.git/mm/slub.c
@@ -1530,13 +1530,30 @@ static inline void add_partial(struct km
list_add(&page->lru, &n->partial);

+static __always_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)
+ __remove_partial(n, page);

- list_del(&page->lru);
- n->nr_partial--;
+ * The difference between remove_partial and remove_freed_partial
+ * is that remove_freed_partial happens only on a a freed slab
+ * that should not have anyone accessing it, and thus does not
+ * require the n->list_lock.
+ */
+static inline void remove_freed_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n,
+ struct page *page)
+ __remove_partial(n, page);

@@ -3195,7 +3212,7 @@ 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_freed_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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/