[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20081115210334.3870cdf6.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 21:03:34 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] mm: introduce simple_malloc()/simple_free()
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:52:29 -0800 Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 12:33:15 +0800
> Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > some subsystem needs vmalloc() when required memory is large.
> > but current kernel has not APIs for this requirement.
> > this patch introduces simple_malloc() and simple_free().
>
> Hi
>
> I kinda really don't like this approach. vmalloc() (and especially,
> vfree()) is a really expensive operation, and vmalloc()'d memory is
> also slower (due to tlb pressure).
And it can fragment, which effectively means a dead box.
> Realistically, people should try hard
> to use small datastructure instead....
Yup, it makes it easier for people to do something which we strongly
discourage. The risk got worse with all these 64-bit machines with
vast amounts of virtual address space. It makes it easier for people
to develop and "test" code which isn't reliable on smaller machines.
--
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