On Jan 2, 2008 9:51 PM, Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
>
> > I just tested something with vanilla 2.6.24-rc6 and had the same problem.
> > Should this patch, or something similar be included for 2.6.24?
>
> Such a patch is in Andrew's tree.
>
> 2.6.24-rc6-mm1:
>
> tatic struct kmem_cache_node *early_kmem_cache_node_alloc(gfp_t gfpflags,
> int node)
> {
> struct page *page;
> struct kmem_cache_node *n;
> unsigned long flags;
> ...
>
> /*
>
> * lockdep requires consistent irq usage for each lock
> * so even though there cannot be a race this early in
> * the boot sequence, we still disable irqs.
> */
> local_irq_save(flags);
> add_partial(kmalloc_caches, page, 0);
> local_irq_restore(flags);
> return n;
> }
>
from 2.6.24-rc6-mm1 patch-series file:
slub-noinline-some-functions-to-avoid-them-being-folded-into-alloc-free.patch
slub-move-kmem_cache_node-determination-into-add_full-and-add_partial.patch
slub-move-kmem_cache_node-determination-into-add_full-and-add_partial-slub-workaround-for-lockdep-confusion.patch
slub-avoid-checking-for-a-valid-object-before-zeroing-on-the-fast-path.patch
It seems it got lumped into some other slub patches, but the bug does
not seem to be introduced by them, as I can see it in mainline
2.6.24-rc6.
Should this patch made a candidate for the merge-before-2.6.24-final-queue?
Torsten
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
