On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 15:35 +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
quoted text
> On Thursday July 24, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl wrote:
> > Restrict objects from reserve slabs (ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS) to allocation
> > contexts that are entitled to it. This is done to ensure reserve pages don't
> > leak out and get consumed.
> 
> This looks good (we are still missing slob though, aren't we :-( )

I actually have that now, just needs some testing..

quoted text
> > @@ -1526,7 +1540,7 @@ load_freelist:
> >  	object = c->page->freelist;
> >  	if (unlikely(!object))
> >  		goto another_slab;
> > -	if (unlikely(SLABDEBUG && PageSlubDebug(c->page)))
> > +	if (unlikely(PageSlubDebug(c->page) || c->reserve))
> >  		goto debug;
> 
> This looks suspiciously like debugging code that you have left in.
> Is it??

Its not, we need to force slub into the debug slow path when we have a
reserve page, otherwise we cannot do the permission check on each
allocation.

quoted text
> > @@ -265,7 +267,8 @@ struct array_cache {
> >  	unsigned int avail;
> >  	unsigned int limit;
> >  	unsigned int batchcount;
> > -	unsigned int touched;
> > +	unsigned int touched:1,
> > +		     reserve:1;
> 
> This sort of thing always worries me.
> It is a per-cpu data structure so you won't get SMP races corrupting
> fields.  But you do get read-modify-write in place of simple updates.
> I guess it's not a problem..  But it worries me :-)

Right,.. do people prefer I just add another int?

--
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