Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | Neil Brown <> | Date | Tue, 12 Aug 2008 19:35:50 +1000 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 05/30] mm: slb: add knowledge of reserve pages |
| |
On Tuesday August 12, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl wrote: > 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..
Cool!
> > > > @@ -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.
I see.... a little. I'm trying to avoid understanding slub too deeply, I don't want to use up valuable brain cell :-) Would we be justified in changing the label from 'debug:' to 'slow_path:' or something? And if it is just c->reserve, should we avoid the call to alloc_debug_processing?
Thanks, NeilBrown
> > > > @@ -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?
| |