lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: slab: Remove SLAB_NO_REAP option
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 10:47:53AM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>
> > Look at the loop, it is redundant work (like acquiring/releasing a
> > spinlock). The cache_cache is practically static, which is why it makes
> > sense to leave it alone.
>
> There is a loop but its broken by
>
> p = l3->slabs_free.next;
> if (p == &(l3->slabs_free))
> break;
>
> One cache_reap() may scan the free list but once its free the code is
> skipped.

I think Pekka is referring to draining of alien cache, array caches and the
shared caches before the loop is is broken by above.

>
> There are potentially large amounts of other caches around that are also
> basically static and which also would need any bypass that we may
> implement.

I agree. That's where SLAB_NO_REAP can be used? or rather, change the
name/documentation to mean something better.

OR, introduce smartness in cache_reap to break the loop earlier if we can
somehow dynamically recognise the cache is static.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-02-23 20:19    [W:0.042 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site