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

From: David Rientjes
Date: Wed Feb 05 2014 - 20:26:44 EST

On Wed, 5 Feb 2014, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> > We'll want to do something similiar for the add_partial() called from
> > early_kmem_cache_node_alloc(), right? It had the added n->list_lock for
> > the same reason and is done during early init where nobody else can be
> > referencing a kmem_cache_node.
> >
> > It would probably be better to define these in terms of "partial slabs
> > that cannot have anyone else accessing it" rather than "freed slabs".
> Perhaps then we just use the __remove_partial() and __add_partial()
> that does not do the checks. That's common practice to use a "__" to
> denote that it's special and usually doesn't require locking.

Sounds appropriate. Andrew released a mmotm today so I'm assuming it will
be in linux-next tomorrow with my {add,remove}_full() patch but it
shouldn't matter if you're going to be playing with
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at