From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:19:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [patch 12/26] SLUB: Slab defragmentation core In-Reply-To: <20070626011831.181d7a6a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Message-ID: References: <20070618095838.238615343@sgi.com> <20070618095916.297690463@sgi.com> <20070626011831.181d7a6a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Pekka Enberg , suresh.b.siddha@intel.com List-ID: On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > > No slab operations may be performed in get_reference(). Interrupts > > s/get_reference/get/, yes? Correct. > (What's the smallest sized object slub will create? 4 bytes?) __alignof__(unsigned long long) > To hold off a concurrent free while defragging, the code relies upon > slab_lock() on the current page, yes? Right. > But slab_lock() isn't taken for slabs whose objects are larger than > PAGE_SIZE. How's that handled? slab lock is always taken. How did you get that idea? > Overall: looks good. It'd be nice to get a buffer_head shrinker in place, > see how that goes from a proof-of-concept POV. Ok. > How much testing has been done on this code, and of what form, and with > what results? I posted them in the intro of the last full post and then Michael Piotrowski did some stress tests. See http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=118125373320855&w=2 -- 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