On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 04:38:41PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 12:38:22AM +0400, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > @@ -3462,6 +3474,17 @@ static inline void __cache_free(struct kmem_cache *cachep, void *objp,
> >
> > kmemcheck_slab_free(cachep, objp, cachep->object_size);
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
> > + if (unlikely(!ac)) {
> > + int nodeid = page_to_nid(virt_to_page(objp));
> > +
> > + spin_lock(&cachep->node[nodeid]->list_lock);
> > + free_block(cachep, &objp, 1, nodeid);
> > + spin_unlock(&cachep->node[nodeid]->list_lock);
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +#endif
> > +
>
> And, please document intention of this code. :)
Sure.
> And, you said that this way of implementation would be slow because
> there could be many object in dead caches and this implementation
> needs node spin_lock on each object freeing. Is it no problem now?
It may be :(
> If you have any performance data about this implementation and
> alternative one, could you share it?
I haven't (shame on me!). I'll do some testing today and send you the
results.
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>