From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx175.postini.com [74.125.245.175]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1BBCA6B004D for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 04:36:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4FB36685.4030104@parallels.com> Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 12:34:13 +0400 From: Glauber Costa MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC] SL[AUO]B common code 6/9] slabs: Use a common mutex definition References: <20120514201544.334122849@linux.com> <20120514201612.262732939@linux.com> In-Reply-To: <20120514201612.262732939@linux.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Pekka Enberg , linux-mm@kvack.org, David Rientjes , Matt Mackall On 05/15/2012 12:15 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote: > Use the mutex definition from SLAB and make it the common way to take a sleeping lock. > > This has the effect of using a mutex instead of a rw semaphore for SLUB. This is very good, IMHO. > SLOB gains the use of a mutex for kmem_cache_create serialization. > Not needed now but SLOB may acquire some more features later (like slabinfo > / sysfs support) through the expansion of the common code that will > need this. Now, won't this hurt performance of the slob allocator, that seems to gain its edge from its simplicity ? But I'll let whoever cares comment on that. From where I stand: > Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter > Reviewed-by: Glauber Costa -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org