[patch 023/181] mm/slub: make add_full() condition more explicit

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

 



From: Abel Wu <wuyun.wu@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: mm/slub: make add_full() condition more explicit

The commit below is incomplete, as it didn't handle the add_full() part. 
commit a4d3f8916c65 ("slub: remove useless kmem_cache_debug() before
remove_full()")

This patch checks for SLAB_STORE_USER instead of kmem_cache_debug(), since
that should be the only context in which we need the list_lock for
add_full().

Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200811020240.1231-1-wuyun.wu@xxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Abel Wu <wuyun.wu@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Liu Xiang <liu.xiang6@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---

 mm/slub.c |    4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/mm/slub.c~mm-slub-make-add_full-condition-more-explicit
+++ a/mm/slub.c
@@ -2245,7 +2245,8 @@ redo:
 		}
 	} else {
 		m = M_FULL;
-		if (kmem_cache_debug(s) && !lock) {
+#ifdef CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG
+		if ((s->flags & SLAB_STORE_USER) && !lock) {
 			lock = 1;
 			/*
 			 * This also ensures that the scanning of full
@@ -2254,6 +2255,7 @@ redo:
 			 */
 			spin_lock(&n->list_lock);
 		}
+#endif
 	}
 
 	if (l != m) {
_



[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Archive]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux