[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070724151046.d8fbb7da.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:10:46 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Phillips <phillips@...gle.com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add __GFP_ZERO to GFP_LEVEL_MASK
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:36:59 -0700 (PDT)
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > > __GFP_MOVABLE The movability of a slab is determined by the
> > > options specified at kmem_cache_create time. If this is
> > > specified at kmalloc time then we will have some random
> > > slabs movable and others not.
> >
> > Yes, they seem inappropriate. Especially the first two.
>
> The third one would randomize __GFP_MOVABLE allocs from the page allocator
> since one __GFP_MOVABLE alloc may allocate a slab that is then used for
> !__GFP_MOVABLE allocs.
>
> Maybe something like this? Note that we may get into some churn here
> since slab allocations that any of these flags will BUG.
>
>
>
> GFP_LEVEL_MASK: Remove __GFP_COLD, __GFP_COMP and __GFPMOVABLE
>
> Add an explanation for the GFP_LEVEL_MASK and remove the flags
> that should not be passed through derived allocators.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
I think I'll duck this for now. Otherwise I have a suspicion that I'll
be the first person to run it and I'm too old for such excitement.
-
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