lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Feb]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateMon, 8 Feb 2010 11:40:38 -0600 (CST)
FromChristoph Lameter <>
SubjectRe: inodes: Support generic defragmentation
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010, Nick Piggin wrote:

> > > After that, LRU on slabs should be fairly easy. Slab could provide a
> > > private per-slab pointer for example that is managed by the caller.
> > > Subsystem can then call into slab to find the objects.
> >
> > Sure with some minor changes we could have a call that is giving you the
> > list of neighboring objects in a slab, while locking it? Then you can look
> > at the objects and decide which ones can be tossed and then do another
> > call to release the objects and unlock the slab.
>
> Yep. Well... you may not even need to ask slab layer to lock the
> slab. Provided that the subsystem is locking out changes. It could
> possibly be helpful to have a call to lock and unlock the slab,
> although usage of such an API would have to be very careful.

True, if you are holding a reference to an object in a slab page and
there is a guarantee that the object is not going away then the slab is already
effectively pinned.

So we just need a call that returns

1. The number of allocated objects in a slab page
2. The total possible number of objects
3. A list of pointers to the objects

?

Then reclaim could make a decision if you want these objects to be
reclaimed.

Such a function could actually be a much less code than the current
patchset and would also be easy to do for SLAB/SLOB.






\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-02-08 18:45    [from the cache]
©2003-2010