![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, Andrew Morton wrote: > > This is getting scary. Manfred, Christoph, Pekka: have you guys taken a > > close look at what's going on in here? On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, Christoph Lameter wrote: > I looked at his patch and he seems to be right. Most of the kmem_cache > structure is established at slab creation. Updates are to the debug > counters and to nodelists[] during node online/offline and to array[] > during cpu online/offline. The chain mutex is used to protect the > setting of the tuning parameters. I still need to have a look at the > details though. The patch looks correct but I am wondering if we should keep the spinlock around for clarity? The chain mutex doesn't really have anything to do with the tunables, it's there to protect the cache chain. I am worried that this patch makes code restructuring harder. Hmm? Pekka - 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: 2006-02-07 08:39 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||