From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 11:38:44 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: [patch] Useless locking in mm/numa.c Message-ID: <20020719183844.GJ1022@holomorphy.com> References: <3D376567.4040307@us.ibm.com> <20020719183646.32486.qmail@web14310.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Description: brief message Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020719183646.32486.qmail@web14310.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Kanoj Sarcar Cc: colpatch@us.ibm.com, Andrew Morton , Martin Bligh , linux-mm@kvack.org, Michael Hohnbaum List-ID: On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 11:36:46AM -0700, Kanoj Sarcar wrote: > I think I put in the locks in the initial version of > the file becase the idea was that > show_free_areas_node() could be invoked from any cpu > in a multinode system (via the sysrq keys or other > intr sources), and the spin lock would provide > sanity in the print out. > For nonnuma discontig machines, isn't the spin lock > providing protection in the pgdat list chain walking > in _alloc_pages()? > Kanoj Since I just posted a patch removing the entire function, exactly where is this called from? A grep of current 2.5 shows that it's never called from anywhere. Cheers, Bill -- 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/