[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0810221252570.3562@quilx.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:54:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
cc: penberg@...helsinki.fi, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, hugh@...itas.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: SLUB defrag pull request?
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> Why? The kmem_cache_free() doesn't touch the contents of the object,
> does it?
Because filesystem code may be running on other processors which may be
freeing the dentry.
>> Because the slab starts out with a series of objects left in a slab. It
>> needs to do build a list of objects etc in a way that is independent as
>> possible from the user of the slab page. It does that by locking the slab
>> page so that free operations stall until the reference has been
>> established. If it would not be shutting off frees then the objects could
>> vanish under us.
>
> It doesn't matter. All we care about is that the dentry is on the
> lru: it's cached but unused. Every other state (being created,
> active, being freed, freed) is uninteresting.
We cannot figure out that it is on the lru if we do not have a stable
reference to the object.
> Sure, and all that is possible without doing this messy 2 phase thing.
> Unless I'm still missing something obvious...
Obviously one cannot free or handle an object that may be concurrently
freed on another processor.
--
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