[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0904231549130.32736@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:52:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] slub: add
Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-kernel-slab
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > - slqb uses /sys/kernel/slab as well and we simply add its files in
> > sysfs-kernel-slab and leave it to userspace to test for which allocator
> > is actually being used. Both allocators share many of the same
> > fundamental attributes but some are only applicable to one,
> >
> > - slqb moves to /sys/kernel/slqb since slub is already resident in
> > /sys/kernel/slab and the mm/slab.c allocator actually has no sysfs
> > interface, or
>
> slqb cannot be concurrently used with slub. So slqb can use
> /sys/kernel/slab as well. So could the original slab allocator.
> Dont change this.
>
I'm more concerned with the userspace API. You're comfortable with
letting userspace determine what allocator the kernel is using either by
testing for the presence of certain slub or slqb-specific files or
checking the config?
That should be fine since there's parity among the files that both
allocators share, but seems fragile if an allocator adds a file that was
previously only applicable to the other or the API happens to change.
My thinking was that /sys/kernel/slqb would be a permanent reference point
that userspace could easily test to determine what API is available.
--
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