Re: [PATCH 4/4] Slab Reclaim logic

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

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> @@ -221,8 +221,9 @@ struct slab {
>  	unsigned long colouroff;
>  	void *s_mem;		/* including colour offset */
>  	unsigned int inuse;	/* num of objs active in slab */
> -	kmem_bufctl_t free;
>  	unsigned short nodeid;
> +	unsigned short marker;
> +	kmem_bufctl_t free;

[snip]

> @@ -298,6 +299,7 @@ struct kmem_list3 {
>  	struct array_cache **alien;	/* on other nodes */
>  	unsigned long next_reap;	/* updated without locking */
>  	int free_touched;		/* updated without locking */
> +	atomic_t reclaim;			/* Reclaim in progress */
>  };

Hmm, we don't need 'marker' and 'reclaim' if SLAB_RECLAIM is not set, 
right?  I don't think we want to bloat struct slab and struct kmem_list3 
for everyone.  What's marker used for?  Why can't we just take the list 
lock instead of 'reclaim'?

				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/