On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Wang Sheng-Hui wrote:
>
> Current struct kmem_cache has no 'lock' field, and slab page is
> managed by struct kmem_cache_node, which has 'list_lock' field.
>
> Clean up the related comment.
>
I think this is fine, but not sure if the s/slab/slab page/ change makes
anything clearer and is unmentioned in the changelog.
> Signed-off-by: Wang Sheng-Hui <shhuiw@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/slab.c | 9 +++++----
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
> index 3070b92..8f7170f 100644
> --- a/mm/slab.c
> +++ b/mm/slab.c
> @@ -1724,7 +1724,8 @@ slab_out_of_memory(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t gfpflags, int nodeid)
> }
>
> /*
> - * Interface to system's page allocator. No need to hold the cache-lock.
> + * Interface to system's page allocator. No need to hold the
> + * kmem_cache_node ->list_lock.
> *
> * If we requested dmaable memory, we will get it. Even if we
> * did not request dmaable memory, we might get it, but that
> @@ -2026,9 +2027,9 @@ static void slab_destroy_debugcheck(struct kmem_cache *cachep,
> * @cachep: cache pointer being destroyed
> * @page: page pointer being destroyed
> *
> - * Destroy all the objs in a slab, and release the mem back to the system.
> - * Before calling the slab must have been unlinked from the cache. The
> - * cache-lock is not held/needed.
> + * Destroy all the objs in a slab page, and release the mem back to the system.
> + * Before calling the slab page must have been unlinked from the cache. The
> + * kmem_cache_node ->list_lock is not held/needed.
> */
> static void slab_destroy(struct kmem_cache *cachep, struct page *page)
> {
--
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>