[PATCH] mm: trivial comment cleanup in slab.c

[PATCH] mm: trivial comment cleanup in slab.c

[Wang Sheng-Hui]

Current struct kmem_cache has no 'lock' field, and slab page is
managed by struct kmem_cache_node, which has 'list_lock' field.

Clean up the related comment.

Signed-off-by: Wang Sheng-Hui <shhuiw@gmail.com>
---
 mm/slab.c | 9 +++++----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
index 3070b92..8f7170f 100644
--- a/mm/slab.c
+++ b/mm/slab.c
@@ -1724,7 +1724,8 @@ slab_out_of_memory(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t gfpflags, int nodeid)
 }

 /*
- * Interface to system's page allocator. No need to hold the cache-lock.
+ * Interface to system's page allocator. No need to hold the
+ * kmem_cache_node ->list_lock.
  *
  * If we requested dmaable memory, we will get it. Even if we
  * did not request dmaable memory, we might get it, but that
@@ -2026,9 +2027,9 @@ static void slab_destroy_debugcheck(struct kmem_cache *cachep,
  * @cachep: cache pointer being destroyed
  * @page: page pointer being destroyed
  *
- * Destroy all the objs in a slab, and release the mem back to the system.
- * Before calling the slab must have been unlinked from the cache.  The
- * cache-lock is not held/needed.
+ * Destroy all the objs in a slab page, and release the mem back to the system.
+ * Before calling the slab page must have been unlinked from the cache. The
+ * kmem_cache_node ->list_lock is not held/needed.
  */
 static void slab_destroy(struct kmem_cache *cachep, struct page *page)
 {
-- 
1.8.3.2

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

Re: [PATCH] mm: trivial comment cleanup in slab.c

[David Rientjes]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Wang Sheng-Hui wrote:

> 
> Current struct kmem_cache has no 'lock' field, and slab page is
> managed by struct kmem_cache_node, which has 'list_lock' field.
> 
> Clean up the related comment.
> 

I think this is fine, but not sure if the s/slab/slab page/ change makes 
anything clearer and is unmentioned in the changelog.

> Signed-off-by: Wang Sheng-Hui <shhuiw@gmail.com>
> ---
>  mm/slab.c | 9 +++++----
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
> index 3070b92..8f7170f 100644
> --- a/mm/slab.c
> +++ b/mm/slab.c
> @@ -1724,7 +1724,8 @@ slab_out_of_memory(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t gfpflags, int nodeid)
>  }
> 
>  /*
> - * Interface to system's page allocator. No need to hold the cache-lock.
> + * Interface to system's page allocator. No need to hold the
> + * kmem_cache_node ->list_lock.
>   *
>   * If we requested dmaable memory, we will get it. Even if we
>   * did not request dmaable memory, we might get it, but that
> @@ -2026,9 +2027,9 @@ static void slab_destroy_debugcheck(struct kmem_cache *cachep,
>   * @cachep: cache pointer being destroyed
>   * @page: page pointer being destroyed
>   *
> - * Destroy all the objs in a slab, and release the mem back to the system.
> - * Before calling the slab must have been unlinked from the cache.  The
> - * cache-lock is not held/needed.
> + * Destroy all the objs in a slab page, and release the mem back to the system.
> + * Before calling the slab page must have been unlinked from the cache. The
> + * kmem_cache_node ->list_lock is not held/needed.
>   */
>  static void slab_destroy(struct kmem_cache *cachep, struct page *page)
>  {

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

Re: [PATCH] mm: trivial comment cleanup in slab.c

[Wang Sheng-Hui]

On 2014a1'07ae??23ae?JPY 05:57, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Wang Sheng-Hui wrote:
> 
>>
>> Current struct kmem_cache has no 'lock' field, and slab page is
>> managed by struct kmem_cache_node, which has 'list_lock' field.
>>
>> Clean up the related comment.
>>
> 
> I think this is fine, but not sure if the s/slab/slab page/ change makes 
> anything clearer and is unmentioned in the changelog.
> 

David,

I used "slab page" to mention the pages used for slab.
Hope that won't introduce any confusion/misunderstanding.

Regards,
Sheng-Hui


>> Signed-off-by: Wang Sheng-Hui <shhuiw@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  mm/slab.c | 9 +++++----
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
>> index 3070b92..8f7170f 100644
>> --- a/mm/slab.c
>> +++ b/mm/slab.c
>> @@ -1724,7 +1724,8 @@ slab_out_of_memory(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t gfpflags, int nodeid)
>>  }
>>
>>  /*
>> - * Interface to system's page allocator. No need to hold the cache-lock.
>> + * Interface to system's page allocator. No need to hold the
>> + * kmem_cache_node ->list_lock.
>>   *
>>   * If we requested dmaable memory, we will get it. Even if we
>>   * did not request dmaable memory, we might get it, but that
>> @@ -2026,9 +2027,9 @@ static void slab_destroy_debugcheck(struct kmem_cache *cachep,
>>   * @cachep: cache pointer being destroyed
>>   * @page: page pointer being destroyed
>>   *
>> - * Destroy all the objs in a slab, and release the mem back to the system.
>> - * Before calling the slab must have been unlinked from the cache.  The
>> - * cache-lock is not held/needed.
>> + * Destroy all the objs in a slab page, and release the mem back to the system.
>> + * Before calling the slab page must have been unlinked from the cache. The
>> + * kmem_cache_node ->list_lock is not held/needed.
>>   */
>>  static void slab_destroy(struct kmem_cache *cachep, struct page *page)
>>  {

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>