[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070223.215439.92580943.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 21:54:39 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: clameter@...r.sgi.com
Cc: kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, andi@...stfloor.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: SLUB: The unqueued Slab allocator
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@...r.sgi.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 21:47:36 -0800 (PST)
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>
> > >From a viewpoint of a crash dump user, this merging will make crash dump
> > investigation very very very difficult.
>
> The general caches already merge lots of users depending on their sizes.
> So we already have the situation and we have tools to deal with it.
But this doesn't happen for things like biovecs, and that will
make debugging painful.
If a crash happens because of a corrupted biovec-256 I want to know
it was a biovec not some anonymous clone of kmalloc256.
Please provide at a minimum a way to turn the merging off.
I also agree with Andi in that merging could mess up how object type
local lifetimes help reduce fragmentation in object pools.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists