Re: [PATCH v3] slub: fix false-positive lockdep warning infree_partial()

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 5 Feb 2014 12:32:43 -0800 (PST)
David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Feb 2014, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> There's an extremely small overhead of taking this lock, the cache has 
> been destroyed and is the process of being torn down, there will be 
> absolutely no contention on n->list_lock.

But why add it if it isn't necessary? You're even disabling interrupts,
which means that you add to the response latency. That is, this change
does affect other aspects of the kernel!

-- Steve
--
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/