Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 6 Feb 2006 23:50:53 -0800 | From | Ravikiran G Thirumalai <> | Subject | Re: [patch 2/3] NUMA slab locking fixes - move irq disabling from cahep->spinlock to l3 lock |
| |
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 09:36:40AM +0200, Pekka J Enberg wrote: > 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?
IMHO, if you keep something around which is not needed, it might later get abused/misused. And what would you add in as comments for the cachep->spinlock?
Instead, bold comments on cachep structure stating what all members are protected by which lock/mutex should be sufficient no?
Thanks, Kiran - 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/
| |