Ravikiran G Thirumalai <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Earlier, we had to disable on chip interrupts while taking the cachep->spinlock
> because, at cache_grow, on every addition of a slab to a slab cache, we
> incremented colour_next which was protected by the cachep->spinlock, and
> cache_grow could occur at interrupt context. Since, now we protect the
> per-node colour_next with the node's list_lock, we do not need to disable
> on chip interrupts while taking the per-cache spinlock, but we
> just need to disable interrupts when taking the per-node kmem_list3 list_lock.
It'd be nice to have some comments describing what cachep->spinlock
actually protects.
Does __cache_shrink() need some locking to prevent nodes from going offline?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
