Re: [PATCH] mm: slub: annotate kmem_cache_node->list_lock as raw_spinlock

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

To: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: slub: annotate kmem_cache_node->list_lock as raw_spinlock
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 09:40:13 +0200
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>, "Zhang, Qiang1" <qiang1.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx>, "42.hyeyoo@xxxxxxxxx" <42.hyeyoo@xxxxxxxxx>, "akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "roman.gushchin@xxxxxxxxx" <roman.gushchin@xxxxxxxxx>, "iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx" <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx>, "rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx" <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>, "penberg@xxxxxxxxxx" <penberg@xxxxxxxxxx>, "cl@xxxxxxxxx" <cl@xxxxxxxxx>, "linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx" <linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx>, "linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Zhao Gongyi <zhaogongyi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, RCU <rcu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <76e15f10-d3f1-2cab-63cb-25aa3b4f2cd4@bytedance.com>
References: <20230411130854.46795-1-zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com> <c6ea3b17-a89c-6f66-5c86-967f1da601b4@suse.cz> <ccaf5e8e-3457-a2cf-b6eb-794cbf1b46f5@bytedance.com> <f54cfeb9-f1c3-e656-d344-4cbf97a7c28a@suse.cz> <932bf921-a076-e166-4f95-1adb24d544cf@bytedance.com> <ZDZG6wlWIE4dzd4W@Boquns-Mac-mini.local> <PH0PR11MB58805856C1C47D49D1BA8092DA9B9@PH0PR11MB5880.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <e6a21ac6-939c-c686-387b-20f81ba5be53@suse.cz> <20230412124735.GE628377@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <76e15f10-d3f1-2cab-63cb-25aa3b4f2cd4@bytedance.com>

On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 12:44:42AM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
> > Something like the completely untested below might be of help..

> I just tested the above code, and then got the following
> warning:
> 

> It seems that the LD_WAIT_SLEEP we set is already greater than the
> LD_WAIT_SPIN of the current context.

Yeah, I'm an idiot and got it wrong.. I'll try again later if I manage
to wake up today :-)

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] mm: slub: annotate kmem_cache_node->list_lock as raw_spinlock
  - From: Peter Zijlstra

References:
- [PATCH] mm: slub: annotate kmem_cache_node->list_lock as raw_spinlock
  - From: Qi Zheng
- Re: [PATCH] mm: slub: annotate kmem_cache_node->list_lock as raw_spinlock
  - From: Vlastimil Babka
- Re: [PATCH] mm: slub: annotate kmem_cache_node->list_lock as raw_spinlock
  - From: Qi Zheng
- Re: [PATCH] mm: slub: annotate kmem_cache_node->list_lock as raw_spinlock
  - From: Vlastimil Babka
- Re: [PATCH] mm: slub: annotate kmem_cache_node->list_lock as raw_spinlock
  - From: Qi Zheng
- Re: [PATCH] mm: slub: annotate kmem_cache_node->list_lock as raw_spinlock
  - From: Boqun Feng
- RE: [PATCH] mm: slub: annotate kmem_cache_node->list_lock as raw_spinlock
  - From: Zhang, Qiang1
- Re: [PATCH] mm: slub: annotate kmem_cache_node->list_lock as raw_spinlock
  - From: Vlastimil Babka
- Re: [PATCH] mm: slub: annotate kmem_cache_node->list_lock as raw_spinlock
  - From: Peter Zijlstra
- Re: [PATCH] mm: slub: annotate kmem_cache_node->list_lock as raw_spinlock
  - From: Qi Zheng

Prev by Date: RE: [PATCH v3] dma-buf/heaps: system_heap: avoid too much allocation
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH V2] perform the check when page without mapping but page->mapping contains junk or random bitscribble
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] mm: slub: annotate kmem_cache_node->list_lock as raw_spinlock
Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] mm: slub: annotate kmem_cache_node->list_lock as raw_spinlock
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

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