Messages in this thread |  | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 05/30] mm: slb: add knowledge of reserve pages | | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | | Date | Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:22:30 +0200 | |
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 15:35 +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Thursday July 24, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl wrote:> > Restrict objects from reserve slabs (ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS) to allocation
> > contexts that are entitled to it. This is done to ensure reserve pages don't
> > leak out and get consumed.> > This looks good (we are still missing slob though, aren't we :-( )
I actually have that now, just needs some testing..
> > @@ -1526,7 +1540,7 @@ load_freelist:> > object = c->page->freelist;
> > if (unlikely(!object))
> > goto another_slab;
> > - if (unlikely(SLABDEBUG && PageSlubDebug(c->page)))
> > + if (unlikely(PageSlubDebug(c->page) || c->reserve))
> > goto debug;> > This looks suspiciously like debugging code that you have left in.
> Is it??
Its not, we need to force slub into the debug slow path when we have a
reserve page, otherwise we cannot do the permission check on each
allocation.
> > @@ -265,7 +267,8 @@ struct array_cache {> > unsigned int avail;
> > unsigned int limit;
> > unsigned int batchcount;
> > - unsigned int touched;
> > + unsigned int touched:1,
> > + reserve:1;> > This sort of thing always worries me.> It is a per-cpu data structure so you won't get SMP races corrupting
> fields. But you do get read-modify-write in place of simple updates.
> I guess it's not a problem.. But it worries me :-)
Right,.. do people prefer I just add another int?
|  |