From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [patch 5/9] slub: Fallback to minimal order during slab page allocation From: "Zhang, Yanmin" In-Reply-To: References: <20080317230516.078358225@sgi.com> <20080317230528.939792410@sgi.com> <1205989839.14496.32.camel@ymzhang> <1206060738.14496.66.camel@ymzhang> <1206076457.14496.85.camel@ymzhang> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:23:15 +0800 Message-Id: <1206087795.14496.120.camel@ymzhang> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Pekka Enberg , Mel Gorman , Matt Mackall , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 23:07 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Zhang, Yanmin wrote: > > > On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 20:35 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Zhang, Yanmin wrote: > > > > > > > > However, its a division in a potentially hot codepath. > > > > No as long as there is no allocation failure because of fragmentation. > > > > > > If its only used for the fallback path then the race condition is still > > > there? > > I can't understand your question. Does it means min_objects? It's not related > > to the race. The fallback path also isn't related to the race. > > > > The race is when kernel runs in allocate_slab, just between fetching s->order and > > s->objects,user might change s->order by sysfs. > > Right. That patch matters most and with the patch that I posted a few > hours ago there is a common scheme that addresses both the race and the > issue with min_objects (hopefully...) Yes, the patch does address them. Thanks, Yanmin -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org