Re: [PATCH v2 04/10] slab: defer slab_destroy in free_block()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, 7 May 2014, Joonsoo Kim wrote:

> In free_block(), if freeing object makes new free slab and number of
> free_objects exceeds free_limit, we start to destroy this new free slab
> with holding the kmem_cache node lock. Holding the lock is useless and,
> generally, holding a lock as least as possible is good thing. I never
> measure performance effect of this, but we'd be better not to hold the lock
> as much as possible.
> 
> Commented by Christoph:
>   This is also good because kmem_cache_free is no longer called while
>   holding the node lock. So we avoid one case of recursion.
> 
> Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx>

Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>

Nice optimization.  I think it could have benefited from a comment 
describing what the free_block() list formal is, though.

--
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>




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]