On Thu, 22 Apr 2010, Pekka Enberg wrote:
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.33. Please verify if it still should be listed and let the
tracking team
know (either way).
I have not been able to reproduce it so far.
So what are our options? We can revert the SLUB conversion patch for now but
I still can't see what's wrong with it...
I haven't been able to reproduce this either on my Core 2 machine.
Yanmin, does something like this help on your machines? I'm thinking false
sharing with some other per-CPU data structure that happens to be put in
same percpu slot as struct kmem_cache_cpu...
Pekka
diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
index 7d6c8b1..d8159d6 100644
--- a/mm/slub.c
+++ b/mm/slub.c
@@ -2066,7 +2066,7 @@ init_kmem_cache_node(struct kmem_cache_node *n, struct kmem_cache *s)
#endif
}
-static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct kmem_cache_cpu, kmalloc_percpu[KMALLOC_CACHES]);
+static DEFINE_PER_CPU_ALIGNED(struct kmem_cache_cpu, kmalloc_percpu[KMALLOC_CACHES]);
static inline int alloc_kmem_cache_cpus(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags)
{
@@ -2077,7 +2077,7 @@ static inline int alloc_kmem_cache_cpus(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags)
*/
s->cpu_slab = kmalloc_percpu + (s - kmalloc_caches);
else
- s->cpu_slab = alloc_percpu(struct kmem_cache_cpu);
+ s->cpu_slab = __alloc_percpu(sizeof(struct kmem_cache_cpu), cache_line_size());
if (!s->cpu_slab)
return 0;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
