Re: [patch 2/3] NUMA slab locking fixes - move irq disabling from cahep->spinlock to l3 lock

Pekka J Enberg
2006-02-07T07:36:57Z

On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > This is getting scary. Manfred, Christoph, Pekka: have you guys taken a
> > close look at what's going on in here?

On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> I looked at his patch and he seems to be right. Most of the kmem_cache
> structure is established at slab creation. Updates are to the debug
> counters and to nodelists[] during node online/offline and to array[]
> during cpu online/offline. The chain mutex is used to protect the
> setting of the tuning parameters. I still need to have a look at the
> details though.

The patch looks correct but I am wondering if we should keep the spinlock
around for clarity? The chain mutex doesn't really have anything to do
with the tunables, it's there to protect the cache chain. I am worried
that this patch makes code restructuring harder. Hmm?

Pekka