lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: No, really, stop trying to delete slab until you've finished making slub perform as well
Hi Christoph,

Christoph Lameter wrote:
> The obvious fix is to avoid allocating another slab on conflict but how will
> this impact performance?
>
>
> Index: linux-2.6/mm/slub.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/mm/slub.c 2008-08-13 08:06:00.000000000 -0500
> +++ linux-2.6/mm/slub.c 2008-08-13 08:07:59.000000000 -0500
> @@ -1253,13 +1253,11 @@
> static inline int lock_and_freeze_slab(struct kmem_cache_node *n,
> struct page *page)
> {
> - if (slab_trylock(page)) {
> - list_del(&page->lru);
> - n->nr_partial--;
> - __SetPageSlubFrozen(page);
> - return 1;
> - }
> - return 0;
> + slab_lock(page);
> + list_del(&page->lru);
> + n->nr_partial--;
> + __SetPageSlubFrozen(page);
> + return 1;
> }

This patch hard locks on my 2-way 64-bit x86 machine (sysrq doesn't
respond) when I run hackbench.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-14 09:21    [W:0.089 / U:2.600 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site