Re: 2.6.27-rc4-git1: Reported regressions from 2.6.26

[Linus Torvalds]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> Bug-Entry	: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11410
> Subject		: SLUB list_lock vs obj_hash.lock...
> Submitter	: Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date		: 2008-08-22 21:48 (2 days old)
> References	: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121944176609042&w=4

This one now has a suggested patch for Daniel to try from Vegard, but no 
reply yet:

	http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121946972307110&w=4

Vegard, I think your patch is a bit odd, though. The result of your patch 
is

 - first loop:

	hlist_for_each_entry_safe(obj, node, tmp, &db->list, node) {
		hlist_del(&obj->node);
		hlist_add_head(&obj->node, &freelist);
	}

   and quite frankly, I don't see what the difference between that and a 
   something like a simple

	struct hlist_node *first = bd->list.first;
	if (first) {
		bd->list.first = NULL;
		first->pprev = &first;
	}

   really is?

I dunno. We don't have list splicing ops for the hlist things.

		Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/