Re: [PATCH 4/4] Slab Reclaim logic

[Pekka J Enberg]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
> > > @@ -298,6 +299,7 @@ struct kmem_list3 {
> > >  	struct array_cache **alien;	/* on other nodes */
> > >  	unsigned long next_reap;	/* updated without locking */
> > >  	int free_touched;		/* updated without locking */
> > > +	atomic_t reclaim;			/* Reclaim in progress */
> > >  };

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Yes we do not need those if SLAB_RECLAIM is not set.
> 
> We only take the list lock for getting at slab addresses. We want slab 
> operations to continue wile reclaim is in progress.
> 
> The marker does not cost anything on ia64 due to structure alignment. We 
> need to have some way (in the absense of taking the list lock) to know 
> when we have reclaimed all slabs.

Not everyone is IA-64.  The slab allocator is already pretty memory 
hungry so lets try not to make it any worse, ok?

					Pekka
-
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/