From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <43B07FE9.4000803@colorfullife.com> Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 00:42:33 +0100 From: Manfred Spraul MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [patch 3/3] mm: NUMA slab -- minor optimizations References: <20051129085049.GA3573@localhost.localdomain> <20051129085456.GC3573@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20051129085456.GC3573@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Ravikiran G Thirumalai Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, clameter@engr.sgi.com, Alok Kataria List-ID: Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote: >Patch adds some minor optimizations: >1. Keeps on chip interrupts enabled for a bit longer while draining cpu >caches >2. Calls numa_node_id once in cache_reap > >Signed-off-by: Alok N Kataria >Signed-off-by: Ravikiran Thirumalai >Signed-off-by: Shai Fultheim > >Index: linux-2.6.15-rc1/mm/slab.c >=================================================================== >--- linux-2.6.15-rc1.orig/mm/slab.c 2005-11-17 21:32:43.000000000 -0800 >+++ linux-2.6.15-rc1/mm/slab.c 2005-11-17 21:32:50.000000000 -0800 >@@ -1914,18 +1914,18 @@ > > smp_call_function_all_cpus(do_drain, cachep); > check_irq_on(); >- spin_lock_irq(&cachep->spinlock); >+ spin_lock(&cachep->spinlock); > > Isn't that a bug? What prevents an interrupt from occuring after the spin_lock() and then causing a deadlock on cachep->spinlock? -- Manfred -- 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