[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1207271538250.25434@router.home>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:46:24 -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] slub: remove one code path and reduce lock contention
in __slab_free()
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> Subject and commit log are changed from v1.
That looks a bit better. But the changelog could use more cleanup and
clearer expression.
> @@ -2490,25 +2492,17 @@ static void __slab_free(struct kmem_cache *s, struct page *page,
> return;
> }
>
> + if (unlikely(!new.inuse && n->nr_partial > s->min_partial))
> + goto slab_empty;
> +
So we can never encounter a empty slab that was frozen before? Really?
Remote frees can decrement inuse again. All objects of a slab frozen on
one cpu could be allocated while the slab is still frozen. The
unfreezing requires slab_alloc to encounter a NULL pointer after all.
A remote processor could obtain a pointer to all these objects and free
them. The code here would cause an unfreeze action. Another alloc on the
first processor would cause a *second* unfreeze action on a page that was
freed.
--
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