Re: SLUB defrag pull request?

[Miklos Szeredi]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> The only way that a secure reference can be established is if the
> slab page is locked. That requires a spinlock. The slab allocator
> calls the get() functions while the slab lock guarantees object
> existence. Then locks are dropped and reclaim actions can start with
> the guarantee that the slab object will not suddenly vanish.

Yes, you've made up your mind, that you want to do it this way.  But
it's the _wrong_ way, this "want to get a secure reference for use
later" leads to madness when applied to dentries or inodes.  Try for a
minute to think outside this template.

For example dcache_lock will protect against dentries moving to/from
d_lru.  So you can do this:

  take dcache_lock
  check if d_lru is non-empty
  take sb->s_umount
  free dentry
  release sb->s_umount
  release dcache_lock

Yeah, locking will be more complicated in reality.  Still, much less
complicated than trying to do the same across two separate phases.

Why can't something like that work?

Miklos
--
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/