From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail6.bemta7.messagelabs.com (mail6.bemta7.messagelabs.com [216.82.255.55]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 691376B002D for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 13:49:58 -0500 (EST) Received: by bke17 with SMTP id 17so1888328bke.14 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 10:49:53 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 20:49:35 +0200 (EET) From: Pekka Enberg Subject: Re: INFO: possible recursive locking detected: get_partial_node() on 3.2-rc1 In-Reply-To: <20111115072251.GA10389@zhy> Message-ID: References: <20111109090556.GA5949@zhy> <201111102335.06046.kernelmail.jms@gmail.com> <1320980671.22361.252.camel@sli10-conroe> <1321248853.22361.280.camel@sli10-conroe> <20111115072251.GA10389@zhy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Yong Zhang Cc: Shaohua Li , Christoph Lameter , Julie Sullivan , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Paul E. McKenney" , Thomas Gleixner , "linux-mm@kvack.org" On Tue, 15 Nov 2011, Yong Zhang wrote: >> Subject: slub: move discard_slab out of node lock >> >> Lockdep reports there is potential deadlock for slub node list_lock. >> discard_slab() is called with the lock hold in unfreeze_partials(), >> which could trigger a slab allocation, which could hold the lock again. >> >> discard_slab() doesn't need hold the lock actually, if the slab is >> already removed from partial list. >> >> Reported-and-tested-by: Yong Zhang >> Reported-and-tested-by: Julie Sullivan >> Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li > > Tested-by: Yong Zhang Applied, thanks! -- 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