From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754327AbaBEIWt (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Feb 2014 03:22:49 -0500 Received: from mail-pb0-f41.google.com ([209.85.160.41]:33199 "EHLO mail-pb0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752158AbaBEIWs (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Feb 2014 03:22:48 -0500 Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 00:22:46 -0800 (PST) From: David Rientjes X-X-Sender: rientjes@chino.kir.corp.google.com To: Vladimir Davydov cc: Andrew Morton , Pekka Enberg , Christoph Lameter , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] slub: fix false-positive lockdep warning in free_partial() In-Reply-To: <1391588133-15469-1-git-send-email-vdavydov@parallels.com> Message-ID: References: <52F1F25F.20402@parallels.com> <1391588133-15469-1-git-send-email-vdavydov@parallels.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 5 Feb 2014, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > Commit c65c1877bd68 ("slub: use lockdep_assert_held") requires > remove_partial() to be called with n->list_lock held, but free_partial() > called from kmem_cache_close() on cache destruction does not follow this > rule, leading to a warning: > > WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 2787 at mm/slub.c:1536 __kmem_cache_shutdown+0x1b2/0x1f0() > Modules linked in: > CPU: 0 PID: 2787 Comm: modprobe Tainted: G W 3.14.0-rc1-mm1+ #1 > Hardware name: > 0000000000000600 ffff88003ae1dde8 ffffffff816d9583 0000000000000600 > 0000000000000000 ffff88003ae1de28 ffffffff8107c107 0000000000000000 > ffff880037ab2b00 ffff88007c240d30 ffffea0001ee5280 ffffea0001ee52a0 > Call Trace: > [] dump_stack+0x51/0x6e > [] warn_slowpath_common+0x87/0xb0 > [] warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x20 > [] __kmem_cache_shutdown+0x1b2/0x1f0 > [] kmem_cache_destroy+0x43/0xf0 > [] xfs_destroy_zones+0x103/0x110 [xfs] > [] exit_xfs_fs+0x38/0x4e4 [xfs] > [] SyS_delete_module+0x19a/0x1f0 > [] ? retint_swapgs+0x13/0x1b > [] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x105/0x1d0 > [] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f > [] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b > > Although this cannot actually result in a race, because on cache > destruction there should not be any concurrent frees or allocations from > the cache, let's add spin_lock/unlock to free_partial() just to keep > lockdep happy. > > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Davydov Acked-by: David Rientjes And thanks for trying the irq-free variant!