On Fri, 25 Jun 2010, Christoph Lameter wrote: > The sequence of unlocking a slab and freeing occurs multiple times. > Put the common into a single function. > Did you want to respond to the comments I made about this patch at http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=127689747432061 ? Specifically, how it makes seeing if there are unmatched slab_lock() -> slab_unlock() pairs more difficult. > Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > mm/slub.c | 16 ++++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > Index: linux-2.6/mm/slub.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.orig/mm/slub.c 2010-06-01 08:58:50.000000000 -0500 > +++ linux-2.6/mm/slub.c 2010-06-01 08:58:54.000000000 -0500 > @@ -1260,6 +1260,13 @@ static __always_inline int slab_trylock( > return rc; > } > > +static void discard_slab_unlock(struct kmem_cache *s, > + struct page *page) > +{ > + slab_unlock(page); > + discard_slab(s, page); > +} > + > /* > * Management of partially allocated slabs > */ > @@ -1437,9 +1444,8 @@ static void unfreeze_slab(struct kmem_ca > add_partial(n, page, 1); > slab_unlock(page); > } else { > - slab_unlock(page); > stat(s, FREE_SLAB); > - discard_slab(s, page); > + discard_slab_unlock(s, page); > } > } > } > @@ -1822,9 +1828,8 @@ slab_empty: > remove_partial(s, page); > stat(s, FREE_REMOVE_PARTIAL); > } > - slab_unlock(page); > stat(s, FREE_SLAB); > - discard_slab(s, page); > + discard_slab_unlock(s, page); > return; > > debug: > @@ -2893,8 +2898,7 @@ int kmem_cache_shrink(struct kmem_cache > */ > list_del(&page->lru); > n->nr_partial--; > - slab_unlock(page); > - discard_slab(s, page); > + discard_slab_unlock(s, page); > } else { > list_move(&page->lru, > slabs_by_inuse + page->inuse); -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>