On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:38:39AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016, js1304@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > @@ -2222,6 +2241,7 @@ static void drain_cpu_caches(struct kmem_cache *cachep)
> > {
> > struct kmem_cache_node *n;
> > int node;
> > + LIST_HEAD(list);
> >
> > on_each_cpu(do_drain, cachep, 1);
> > check_irq_on();
> > @@ -2229,8 +2249,13 @@ static void drain_cpu_caches(struct kmem_cache *cachep)
> > if (n->alien)
> > drain_alien_cache(cachep, n->alien);
> >
> > - for_each_kmem_cache_node(cachep, node, n)
> > - drain_array(cachep, n, n->shared, 1, node);
> > + for_each_kmem_cache_node(cachep, node, n) {
> > + spin_lock_irq(&n->list_lock);
> > + drain_array_locked(cachep, n->shared, node, true, &list);
> > + spin_unlock_irq(&n->list_lock);
> > +
> > + slabs_destroy(cachep, &list);
>
> Can the slabs_destroy() call be moved outside of the loop? It may be
> faster then?
Yes, it can. But, I'd prefer to call it on each node. It would be
better for cache although it would be marginal.
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>