Re: [PATCH 3/3] slub: release a lock if freeing object with a lock isfailed in __slab_free()

[JoonSoo Kim]

2012/7/7 Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2012, JoonSoo Kim wrote:
>
>> >> At CPU2, we don't need lock anymore, because this slab already in partial list.
>> >
>> > For that scenario we could also simply do a trylock there and redo
>> > the loop if we fail. But still what guarantees that another process will
>> > not modify the page struct between fetching the data and a successful
>> > trylock?
>>
>>
>> I'm not familiar with English, so take my ability to understand into
>> consideration.
>
> I have a hard time understanding what you want to accomplish here.
>
>> we don't need guarantees that another process will not modify
>> the page struct between fetching the data and a successful trylock.
>
> No we do not need that since the cmpxchg will then fail.
>
> Maybe it would be useful to split this patch into two?
>
> One where you introduce the dropping of the lock and the other where you
> get rid of certain code paths?
>

Dropping of the lock is need for getting rid of certain code paths.
So, I can't split this patch into two.

Sorry for confusing all the people.
I think that I don't explain my purpose well.
I will prepare new version in which I explain purpose of patch better.

Thanks for kind review.
--
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/