From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <20020719184058.44876.qmail@web14303.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 11:40:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Kanoj Sarcar Subject: Re: [patch] Useless locking in mm/numa.c In-Reply-To: <20020719183844.GJ1022@holomorphy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: William Lee Irwin III Cc: colpatch@us.ibm.com, Andrew Morton , Martin Bligh , linux-mm@kvack.org, Michael Hohnbaum List-ID: --- William Lee Irwin III wrote: > 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 Ok. I was just pointing out why the lock was added initially. The reasons might not make sense anymore. Kanoj __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes http://autos.yahoo.com -- 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/