![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@scalex86.org> wrote: > > Earlier, we had to disable on chip interrupts while taking the cachep->spinlock > because, at cache_grow, on every addition of a slab to a slab cache, we > incremented colour_next which was protected by the cachep->spinlock, and > cache_grow could occur at interrupt context. Since, now we protect the > per-node colour_next with the node's list_lock, we do not need to disable > on chip interrupts while taking the per-cache spinlock, but we > just need to disable interrupts when taking the per-node kmem_list3 list_lock. It'd be nice to have some comments describing what cachep->spinlock actually protects. Does __cache_shrink() need some locking to prevent nodes from going offline? - 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: 2006-02-04 09:52 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||