Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 7 Feb 2006 09:36:40 +0200 (EET) | From | Pekka J Enberg <> | Subject | Re: [patch 2/3] NUMA slab locking fixes - move irq disabling from cahep->spinlock to l3 lock |
| |
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, Andrew Morton wrote: > > This is getting scary. Manfred, Christoph, Pekka: have you guys taken a > > close look at what's going on in here?
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, Christoph Lameter wrote: > I looked at his patch and he seems to be right. Most of the kmem_cache > structure is established at slab creation. Updates are to the debug > counters and to nodelists[] during node online/offline and to array[] > during cpu online/offline. The chain mutex is used to protect the > setting of the tuning parameters. I still need to have a look at the > details though.
The patch looks correct but I am wondering if we should keep the spinlock around for clarity? The chain mutex doesn't really have anything to do with the tunables, it's there to protect the cache chain. I am worried that this patch makes code restructuring harder. Hmm?
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/
| |