[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5085068E.5080304@parallels.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:40:46 +0400
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
CC: <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
"Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...nel.org>, <devel@...nvz.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/18] slab: don't preemptively remove element from
list in cache destroy
On 10/19/2012 11:34 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
>
>> I, however, see no reason why we need to do so, since we are now locked
>> during the whole deletion (which wasn't necessarily true before). I
>> propose a simplification in which we delete it only when there is no
>> more going back, so we don't need to add it again.
>
> Ok lets hope that holding the lock does not cause issues.
>
> Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
>
BTW: One of the good things about this set, is that we are naturally
exercising cache destruction a lot more than we did before. So if there
is any problem, either with this or anything related to cache
destruction, it should at least show up a lot more frequently. So far,
this does not seem to cause any problems.
--
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