On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Look at the loop, it is redundant work (like acquiring/releasing a
> spinlock). The cache_cache is practically static, which is why it makes
> sense to leave it alone.
There is a loop but its broken by
p = l3->slabs_free.next;
if (p == &(l3->slabs_free))
break;
One cache_reap() may scan the free list but once its free the code is
skipped.
There are potentially large amounts of other caches around that are also
basically static and which also would need any bypass that we may
implement.
-
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]
