On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 09:25:02PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2015 10:32:47 +0900
> Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> > > > +++ b/mm/slub.c
> > > > @@ -2398,13 +2398,15 @@ redo:
> > > > * reading from one cpu area. That does not matter as long
> > > > * as we end up on the original cpu again when doing the cmpxchg.
> > > > *
> > > > - * Preemption is disabled for the retrieval of the tid because that
> > > > - * must occur from the current processor. We cannot allow rescheduling
> > > > - * on a different processor between the determination of the pointer
> > > > - * and the retrieval of the tid.
> > > > + * We should guarantee that tid and kmem_cache are retrieved on
> > > > + * the same cpu. It could be different if CONFIG_PREEMPT so we need
> > > > + * to check if it is matched or not.
> > > > */
> > > > - preempt_disable();
> > > > - c = this_cpu_ptr(s->cpu_slab);
> > > > + do {
> > > > + tid = this_cpu_read(s->cpu_slab->tid);
> > > > + c = this_cpu_ptr(s->cpu_slab);
> > > > + } while (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT) && unlikely(tid != c->tid));
> > > > + barrier();
> > >
> > > Help maintenance more if barrier is documented in commit message.
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Okay. Will add some information about this barrier in commit message.
>
> A comment in the commit message is useless. Adding a small comment
> above the barrier() call itself would be much more useful.
Okay. Will do.
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>