Re: [patch 09/10] SLUB: Do our own locking via slab_lock and slab_unlock.

Hi,

On 10/29/07, Christoph Lameter <[email protected]> wrote:
> > We don't need preempt_enable for CONFIG_SMP, right?
>
> preempt_enable is needed if preemption is enabled.

Disabled? But yeah, I see that slab_trylock() can leave preemption
disabled if cmpxchg fails. Was confused by the #ifdefs... :-)
-
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/

References:
- [patch 00/10] SLUB: SMP regression tests on Dual Xeon E5345 (8p) and new performance patches
  - From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
- [patch 09/10] SLUB: Do our own locking via slab_lock and slab_unlock.
  - From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 09/10] SLUB: Do our own locking via slab_lock and slab_unlock.
  - From: Pekka J Enberg <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 09/10] SLUB: Do our own locking via slab_lock and slab_unlock.
  - From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: [REGRESSION] 2.6.24-rc1 fails to boot on a 486
Next by Date: Re: [REGRESSION] 2.6.24-rc1 fails to boot on a 486
Previous by thread: Re: [patch 09/10] SLUB: Do our own locking via slab_lock and slab_unlock.
Next by thread: Re: [patch 09/10] SLUB: Do our own locking via slab_lock and slab_unlock.
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[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]