Re: possible recursive locking detected cache_alloc_refill() + cache_flusharray()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



* Thus spake Peter Zijlstra (peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx):
> Thanks!
You're welcome.

> > +static void slab_each_set_lock_classes(struct kmem_cache *cachep)
> > +{
> > +	int node;
> > +
> > +	for_each_online_node(node) {
> > +		slab_set_lock_classes(cachep, &debugobj_l3_key,
> > +				&debugobj_alc_key, node);
> > +	}
> > +}
> 
> Hmm, O(nr_nodes^2), sounds about right for alien crap, right?
A little less if not all nodes are online :) However it is the same kind of
init used earlier by setup_cpu_cache().
I tried to pull lockclass into cachep but lockdep didn't like this.

> Still needs some hotplug love though, maybe something like the below...
> Sebastian, would you be willing to give the thing another spin to see if
> I didnt (again) break anything silly?
Looks good, compiles and seems to work :)

Sebastian

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]