[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1207060928580.26790@router.home>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 09:34:01 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: JoonSoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] slub: release a lock if freeing object with a lock
is failed in __slab_free()
On Fri, 6 Jul 2012, JoonSoo Kim wrote:
> For example,
> When we try to free object A at cpu 1, another process try to free
> object B at cpu 2 at the same time.
> object A, B is in same slab, and this slab is in full list.
>
> CPU 1 CPU 2
> prior = page->freelist; prior = page->freelist
> .... ...
> new.inuse--; new.inuse--;
> taking lock try to take the lock, but failed, so
> spinning...
> free success spinning...
> add_partial
> release lock taking lock
> fail cmpxchg_double_slab
> retry
> currently, we don't need lock
>
> At CPU2, we don't need lock anymore, because this slab already in partial list.
For that scenario we could also simply do a trylock there and redo
the loop if we fail. But still what guarantees that another process will
not modify the page struct between fetching the data and a successful
trylock?
--
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