* Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> > indeed ...
>
> How about something like so? It would fix this particular
> issue and lays the groundwork for maybe reusing some of
> the resources we now leak.
> @@ -3916,6 +3926,20 @@ void lockdep_free_key_range(void *start, unsigned long
> size)
> if (locked)
> graph_unlock();
> raw_local_irq_restore(flags);
> +
> + /*
> + * Wait for any possible iterators from look_up_lock_class() to pass
> + * before continuing to free the memory they refer to.
> + *
> + * sync_sched() is sufficient because the read-side is IRQ disable.
> + */
> + synchronize_sched();
> + /* Free lock-classes; relies on the preceding sync_rcu(). */
> lockdep_free_key_range(mod->module_core, mod->core_size);
> free_module:
> + /* Free lock-classes; relies on the preceding sync_rcu() */
> + lockdep_free_key_range(mod->module_core, mod->core_size);
Yeah. Looks good to me in principle, without having tested
it that is as I don't use modules on devel boxes:
Reviewed-by: Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org>
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
