From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail6.bemta12.messagelabs.com (mail6.bemta12.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.247]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EB916B004D for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 10:39:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <1322581121.2921.245.camel@twins> Subject: Re: possible slab deadlock while doing ifenslave From: Peter Zijlstra Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:38:41 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <201110121019.53100.hans@schillstrom.com> <201110131019.58397.hans@schillstrom.com> <1322515158.2921.179.camel@twins> <1322515222.2921.180.camel@twins> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: David Rientjes , Hans Schillstrom , Ingo Molnar , Pekka Enberg , Matt Mackall , Sitsofe Wheeler , linux-mm@kvack.org On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 08:58 -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Mon, 28 Nov 2011, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >=20 > > Currently we only annotate the kmalloc caches, annotate all of them. >=20 > What is the benefit?=20 Extra paranoia I guess.. I was fairly sure it was pointless, but I send it anyway. > The metadata for off slab caches uses the > kmalloc array. Should the annotation for the kmalloc cache not be > sufficient by putting that into a different lock category? Non-kmalloc > caches already have a different lock category before this patch right? Yeah, we annotate all kmalloc caches that have l3 and aren't OFF_SLAB(). -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org