Re: [patch 2/3] NUMA slab locking fixes - move irq disabling from cahep->spinlock to l3 lock

[Pekka J Enberg <penberg@cs.Helsinki.FI>]

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?

				Pekka
-
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/