Re: No, really, stop trying to delete slab until you've finishedmaking slub perform as well

[Pekka Enberg]

Hi Christoph,

Christoph Lameter wrote:
> The obvious fix is to avoid allocating another slab on conflict but how will
> this impact performance?
>
>
> Index: linux-2.6/mm/slub.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/mm/slub.c	2008-08-13 08:06:00.000000000 -0500
> +++ linux-2.6/mm/slub.c	2008-08-13 08:07:59.000000000 -0500
> @@ -1253,13 +1253,11 @@
>  static inline int lock_and_freeze_slab(struct kmem_cache_node *n,
>  							struct page *page)
>  {
> -	if (slab_trylock(page)) {
> -		list_del(&page->lru);
> -		n->nr_partial--;
> -		__SetPageSlubFrozen(page);
> -		return 1;
> -	}
> -	return 0;
> +	slab_lock(page);
> +	list_del(&page->lru);
> +	n->nr_partial--;
> +	__SetPageSlubFrozen(page);
> +	return 1;
>  }

This patch hard locks  on my 2-way 64-bit x86 machine (sysrq doesn't 
respond) when I run hackbench.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/