On Thu, 17 Jan 2013, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > c->tid = next_tid(c->tid);
> > - c->page = NULL;
> > c->freelist = NULL;
> > + c->page = NULL;
>
> I'm assuming that this is to deal with the same CPU being able to touch
> the code?
>
> If so, it requires "barrier()". If this can affect other CPUs, then we
> need a smp_wmb() here, and smp_rmb() where it matters.
This is dealing with the same cpu being interrupted. Some of these
segments are in interrupt disable sections so they are not affected.
The above is a section where interrupts are enabled so it needs the
barriers.
> > @@ -2227,8 +2227,8 @@ redo:
> > if (unlikely(!node_match(page, node))) {
> > stat(s, ALLOC_NODE_MISMATCH);
> > deactivate_slab(s, page, c->freelist);
> > - c->page = NULL;
> > c->freelist = NULL;
> > + c->page = NULL;
> > goto new_slab;
> > }
> >
Interrupts are disabled so we do not need to change anything here.
> > @@ -2239,8 +2239,8 @@ redo:
> > */
> > if (unlikely(!pfmemalloc_match(page, gfpflags))) {
> > deactivate_slab(s, page, c->freelist);
> > - c->page = NULL;
> > c->freelist = NULL;
> > + c->page = NULL;
> > goto new_slab;
> > }
> >
Ditto which leaves us with:
Index: linux/mm/slub.c
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/mm/slub.c 2013-01-17 15:49:57.417491975 -0600
+++ linux/mm/slub.c 2013-01-17 15:50:49.010287150 -0600
@@ -1993,8 +1993,9 @@ static inline void flush_slab(struct kme
deactivate_slab(s, c->page, c->freelist);
c->tid = next_tid(c->tid);
- c->page = NULL;
c->freelist = NULL;
+ barrier();
+ c->page = NULL;
}
/*
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>