From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755868AbaBFPgo (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Feb 2014 10:36:44 -0500 Received: from qmta11.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.27.211]:49006 "EHLO qmta11.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751837AbaBFPgn (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Feb 2014 10:36:43 -0500 Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 09:36:40 -0600 (CST) From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: cl@nuc To: Vladimir Davydov cc: Steven Rostedt , LKML , penberg@kernel.org, Andrew Morton , David Rientjes , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] slub: Do not assert not having lock in removing freed partial In-Reply-To: <52F32F46.8090205@parallels.com> Message-ID: References: <20140205222112.742169e0@gandalf.local.home> <52F32F46.8090205@parallels.com> 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 Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > > @@ -2906,12 +2916,10 @@ static void early_kmem_cache_node_alloc( > > inc_slabs_node(kmem_cache_node, node, page->objects); > > > > /* > > - * the lock is for lockdep's sake, not for any actual > > - * race protection > > + * No locks need to be taken here as it has just been > > + * initialized and there is no concurrent access. > > */ > > - spin_lock(&n->list_lock); > > - add_partial(n, page, DEACTIVATE_TO_HEAD); > > - spin_unlock(&n->list_lock); > > + __add_partial(n, page, DEACTIVATE_TO_HEAD); > > } Ahh.. Much better. Acked-by: Christoph Lameter