[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <18593.8466.965002.476705@notabene.brown>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:35:14 +1000
From: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, trond.myklebust@....uio.no,
Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/30] mm: slb: add knowledge of reserve pages
On Thursday July 24, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl wrote:
> Restrict objects from reserve slabs (ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS) to allocation
> contexts that are entitled to it. This is done to ensure reserve pages don't
> leak out and get consumed.
This looks good (we are still missing slob though, aren't we :-( )
> @@ -1526,7 +1540,7 @@ load_freelist:
> object = c->page->freelist;
> if (unlikely(!object))
> goto another_slab;
> - if (unlikely(SLABDEBUG && PageSlubDebug(c->page)))
> + if (unlikely(PageSlubDebug(c->page) || c->reserve))
> goto debug;
This looks suspiciously like debugging code that you have left in.
Is it??
> @@ -265,7 +267,8 @@ struct array_cache {
> unsigned int avail;
> unsigned int limit;
> unsigned int batchcount;
> - unsigned int touched;
> + unsigned int touched:1,
> + reserve:1;
This sort of thing always worries me.
It is a per-cpu data structure so you won't get SMP races corrupting
fields. But you do get read-modify-write in place of simple updates.
I guess it's not a problem.. But it worries me :-)
NeilBrown
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists