On Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 10:37:17PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 09:29:08PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > Well, no. Look at the callchain:
> > > >
> > > > __call_rcu
> > > > debug_object_activate
> > > > rcuhead_fixup_activate
> > > > debug_object_init
> > > > kmem_cache_alloc
> > > >
> > > > So call rcu activates the object, but the object has no reference in
> > > > the debug objects code so the fixup code is called which inits the
> > > > object and allocates a reference ....
> > >
> > > OK, got it. And you are right, call_rcu() has done this for a very
> > > long time, so not sure what changed. But it seems like the right
> > > approach is to provide a debug-object-free call_rcu_alloc() for use
> > > by the memory allocators.
> > >
> > > Seem reasonable? If so, please see the following patch.
> >
> > Not really, you're torpedoing the whole purpose of debugobjects :)
> >
> > So, why can't we just init the rcu head when the stuff is created?
>
> That would allow me to keep my code unchanged, so I am in favor. ;-)
Almost unchanged. You need to provide a function to do so, i.e. make
use of
debug_init_rcu_head()
Thanks,
tglx
--
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>