Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 22 Jun 2006 22:34:38 +0300 (EEST) | From | Pekka J Enberg <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/4] Slab Reclaim logic |
| |
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006, Christoph Lameter wrote: > @@ -221,8 +221,9 @@ struct slab { > unsigned long colouroff; > void *s_mem; /* including colour offset */ > unsigned int inuse; /* num of objs active in slab */ > - kmem_bufctl_t free; > unsigned short nodeid; > + unsigned short marker; > + kmem_bufctl_t free;
[snip]
> @@ -298,6 +299,7 @@ struct kmem_list3 { > struct array_cache **alien; /* on other nodes */ > unsigned long next_reap; /* updated without locking */ > int free_touched; /* updated without locking */ > + atomic_t reclaim; /* Reclaim in progress */ > };
Hmm, we don't need 'marker' and 'reclaim' if SLAB_RECLAIM is not set, right? I don't think we want to bloat struct slab and struct kmem_list3 for everyone. What's marker used for? Why can't we just take the list lock instead of 'reclaim'?
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/
| |