On Wed, 8 Jun 2022, Rongwei Wang wrote:
> If available, I think document the issue and warn this incorrect behavior is
> OK. But it still prints a large amount of confusing messages, and disturbs us?
Correct it would be great if you could fix this in a way that does not
impact performance.
> > are current operations on the slab being validated.
> And I am trying to fix it in following way. In a short, these changes only
> works under the slub debug mode, and not affects the normal mode (I'm not
> sure). It looks not elegant enough. And if all approve of this way, I can
> submit the next version.
>
> Anyway, thanks for your time:).
> -wrw
>
> @@ -3304,7 +3300,7 @@ static void __slab_free(struct kmem_cache *s,
struct
> slab *slab,
>
> {
> void *prior;
> - int was_frozen;
> + int was_frozen, to_take_off = 0;
> struct slab new;
to_take_off has the role of !n ? Why is that needed?
> - do {
> - if (unlikely(n)) {
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&n->list_lock, flags);
> + ret = free_debug_processing(s, slab, head, tail, cnt, addr);
Ok so the idea is to take the lock only if kmem_cache_debug. That looks
ok. But it still adds a number of new branches etc to the free loop.
Some performance tests would be useful.
