On 07/01/2014 05:49 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 1 Jul 2014 09:58:52 -0500 (CDT) Christoph Lameter <c...@gentwo.org> > wrote: > >> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014, David Rientjes wrote: >> >>> It's not at all clear to me that that patch is correct. Wei? >> >> Looks ok to me. But I do not like the convoluted code in new_slab() which >> Wei's patch does not make easier to read. Makes it difficult for the >> reader to see whats going on. >> >> Lets drop the use of the variable named "last". >> >> >> Subject: slub: Only call setup_object once for each object >> >> Modify the logic for object initialization to be less convoluted >> and initialize an object only once. >> > > Well, um. Wei's changelog was much better: > > : When a kmem_cache is created with ctor, each object in the kmem_cache will > : be initialized before use. In the slub implementation, the first object > : will be initialized twice. > : > : This patch avoids the duplication of initialization of the first object. > : > : Fixes commit 7656c72b5a63: ("SLUB: add macros for scanning objects in a > : slab"). > > I can copy that text over and add the reported-by etc (ho hum) but I > have a tiny feeling that this patch hasn't been rigorously tested? > Perhaps someone (Wei?) can do that? > > And we still don't know why Sasha's kernel went oops.
I only saw this oops once, and after David's message yesterday I tried reverting the patch he pointed out, but not much changed. Is there a better way to stress test slub? Thanks, Sasha -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/