On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
> > > @@ -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 */
> > > };
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Yes we do not need those if SLAB_RECLAIM is not set.
>
> We only take the list lock for getting at slab addresses. We want slab
> operations to continue wile reclaim is in progress.
>
> The marker does not cost anything on ia64 due to structure alignment. We
> need to have some way (in the absense of taking the list lock) to know
> when we have reclaimed all slabs.
Not everyone is IA-64. The slab allocator is already pretty memory
hungry so lets try not to make it any worse, ok?
Pekka
-
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]
