Re: slab: Remove SLAB_NO_REAP option

[Christoph Lameter]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, Pekka Enberg wrote:

> Look at the loop, it is redundant work (like acquiring/releasing a
> spinlock). The cache_cache is practically static, which is why it makes
> sense to leave it alone.

There is a loop but its broken by

			p = l3->slabs_free.next;
                        if (p == &(l3->slabs_free))
                                break;

One cache_reap() may scan the free list but once its free the code is 
skipped.

There are potentially large amounts of other caches around that are also 
basically static and which also would need any bypass that we may 
implement.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/