From: David Rientjes <rient...@google.com> Commit c65c1877bd68 ("slub: use lockdep_assert_held") incorrectly required that add_full() and remove_full() hold n->list_lock. The lock is only taken when kmem_cache_debug(s), since that's the only time it actually does anything.
Require that the lock only be taken under such a condition. Reported-by: Larry Finger <larry.fin...@lwfinger.net> Tested-by: Larry Finger <larry.fin...@lwfinger.net> Tested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <c...@linux.com> Cc: Pekka Enberg <penb...@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rient...@google.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> [backported from ms commit 255d0884f563 ("mm/slub.c: list_lock may not be held in some circumstances")] Cc: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabi...@virtuozzo.com> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Safonov <dsafo...@virtuozzo.com> --- mm/slub.c | 6 ++---- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c index c930b022c5be..fcebd145a1b6 100644 --- a/mm/slub.c +++ b/mm/slub.c @@ -960,21 +960,19 @@ static void trace(struct kmem_cache *s, struct page *page, void *object, static void add_full(struct kmem_cache *s, struct kmem_cache_node *n, struct page *page) { - lockdep_assert_held(&n->list_lock); - if (!(s->flags & SLAB_STORE_USER)) return; + lockdep_assert_held(&n->list_lock); list_add(&page->lru, &n->full); } static void remove_full(struct kmem_cache *s, struct kmem_cache_node *n, struct page *page) { - lockdep_assert_held(&n->list_lock); - if (!(s->flags & SLAB_STORE_USER)) return; + lockdep_assert_held(&n->list_lock); list_del(&page->lru); } -- 2.10.2 _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openvz.org https://lists.openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel