lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: SLUB defrag pull request?
From
Date
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> The only way that a secure reference can be established is if the
> slab page is locked. That requires a spinlock. The slab allocator
> calls the get() functions while the slab lock guarantees object
> existence. Then locks are dropped and reclaim actions can start with
> the guarantee that the slab object will not suddenly vanish.

Yes, you've made up your mind, that you want to do it this way. But
it's the _wrong_ way, this "want to get a secure reference for use
later" leads to madness when applied to dentries or inodes. Try for a
minute to think outside this template.

For example dcache_lock will protect against dentries moving to/from
d_lru. So you can do this:

take dcache_lock
check if d_lru is non-empty
take sb->s_umount
free dentry
release sb->s_umount
release dcache_lock

Yeah, locking will be more complicated in reality. Still, much less
complicated than trying to do the same across two separate phases.

Why can't something like that work?

Miklos


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-10-22 09:13    [W:0.059 / U:4.532 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site