On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > Then the thread could be preempted and rescheduled on a different cpu
> > between put_cpu and local_irq_save() which means that we loose the
> > state information of the kmem_cache_cpu structure.
> >
>
> Maybe am I misunderstanding something, but kmem_cache_cpu does not seem
> to be passed to __slab_free() at all, nor any data referenced by it. So
> why do we care about being preempted there ?
Right it is only useful for __slab_alloc. I just changed them both to look
the same. We could do it that way in __slab_free() to avoid the later
preempt_check_resched().
> > We could do that but maybe the frequency of these checks would be too
> > high? When should the resched checks be used?
>
> Since we are only doing this on the slow path, it does not hurt.
> preempt_check_resched() is embedded in preempt_enable() and has a very
> low impact (simple thread flag check in the standard case).
Ok then lets add it.
-
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]
