On Tue, 8 Mar 2016, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> # set the bit
> 80543b8e: ld_s r2,[r13,0] <--- (A) Finds PG_locked is set
> 80543b90: or r3,r2,1<--- (B) other core unlocks right here
> 80543b94: st_s r3,[r13,0] <--- (C) sets PG_locked (overwrites
> unlock)
Duh. Gues
On Tue, 8 Mar 2016, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> This in turn happened because slab_unlock() doesn't serialize properly
> (doesn't use atomic clear) with a concurrent running
> slab_lock()->test_and_set_bit()
This is intentional because of the increased latency of atomic
instructions. Why would the unlo
