Re: [PATCH 12/30] mm: memory reserve management

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <linux-mm@...>, <netdev@...>, <trond.myklebust@...>, Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...>
Date: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 2:23 am

On Thursday July 24, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl wrote:

This looks quite different to last time I looked at the code (I
think).

You now have a more structured "kmalloc_reserve" interface which
returns a flag to say if the allocation was from an emergency pool.  I
think this will be a distinct improvement at the call sites, though I
haven't looked at them yet. :-)

                                            ^^^^^

....

I cannot figure out why the spinlock is being used to protect updates
to 'limit'.
As far as I can see, mem_reserve_mutex already protects all those
updates.
Certainly we need the spinlock for usage, but why for limit??

....

Why not just

	if (emerg)
		*emerg = 1.

I can't we where '*emerg' can have any value but 0 or 1, so the '|' is
pointless ???

Thanks,
NeilBrown
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [PATCH 12/30] mm: memory reserve management, Neil Brown, (Tue Aug 12, 2:23 am)
Re: [PATCH 12/30] mm: memory reserve management, Peter Zijlstra, (Tue Aug 12, 4:10 am)