[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1224745831.25814.21.camel@penberg-laptop>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:10:31 +0300
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: cl@...ux-foundation.org, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, hugh@...itas.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: SLUB defrag pull request?
Hi Miklos,
On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 00:10 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> Actually, no: looking at the slub code it already makes sure that
> objects are neither poisoned, nor touched in any way _if_ there is a
> constructor for the object. And for good reason too, otherwise a
> reused object would contain rubbish after a second allocation.
There's no inherent reason why we cannot poison slab caches with a
constructor. As a matter of fact SLAB does it which is probably why I
got confused here. The only thing that needs to disable slab poisoning
by design is SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU.
But for SLUB, you're obviously right.
On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 00:10 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> Come on guys, you should be the experts in this thing!
Yeah, I know. Yet you're stuck with us. That's sad.
Pekka
--
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