On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, JoonSoo Kim wrote: > In case of !object (available = page->objects - page->inuse;), > "available" means the number of objects in cpu slab.
Right because we do not have allocated any cpu partial slabs yet. > In this time, we don't have any cpu partial slab, so "available" imply > the number of objects available to the cpu without locking. > This is what we want. > > > But, see another "available" (available = put_cpu_partial(s, page, 0);). > > This "available" doesn't include the number of objects in cpu slab. Ok. Now I see. > Therefore, I think a minor fix is needed for consistency. > Isn't it reasonable? Yup it is. Let me look over your patch again. Ok so use meaningful names for the variables to clarify the issue. cpu_objects and partial_objects or so? Then the check would be as you proposed in the last message if (cpu_objects + partial_objects < s->cpu_partial ... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
