Re: [patch 09/10] SLUB: Do our own locking via slab_lock and slab_unlock.

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Pekka J Enberg
Date: Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 8:10 am

Hi Christoph,

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:


[snip]

It would be easier to review the actual locking changes if you did the 
SlabXXX removal in a separate patch.


Memory barriers deserve a comment. I suppose this is protecting 
page->flags but against what?


We don't need preempt_enable for CONFIG_SMP, right?


This needs a less generic name and maybe a comment explaining that it's 
not annotating a proper lock? Or maybe we can drop it completely?


This is hairy. Perhaps it would be cleaner to have totally separate 
functions for SMP and UP instead?


Same here.

				Pekka
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[patch 09/10] SLUB: Do our own locking via slab_lock and s ..., Christoph Lameter, (Sat Oct 27, 8:32 pm)
Re: [patch 09/10] SLUB: Do our own locking via slab_lock a ..., Pekka J Enberg, (Sun Oct 28, 8:10 am)
Re: [patch 09/10] SLUB: Do our own locking via slab_lock a ..., Christoph Lameter, (Sun Oct 28, 8:03 pm)
Re: [patch 09/10] SLUB: Do our own locking via slab_lock a ..., Christoph Lameter, (Tue Oct 30, 11:32 am)