Re: SLUB: The unqueued Slab allocator

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 23:00 -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 
> > +/*
> > + * Lock order:
> > + *   1. slab_lock(page)
> > + *   2. slab->list_lock
> > + *
> 
> That seems to contradict this:

This is a trylock. If it fails then we can compensate by allocating
a new slab.
-
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/

---

• References:
  • SLUB: The unqueued Slab allocator
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: SLUB: The unqueued Slab allocator
    • From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Weird hard disk noise on shutdown (bug #7674)
• Next by Date: Re: ata-piix ACPI errors
• Previous by thread: Re: SLUB: The unqueued Slab allocator
• Next by thread: Re: SLUB: The unqueued Slab allocator
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]