[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1244799865.7172.112.camel@pasglop>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:44:25 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
cl@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: slab: setup allocators earlier in the boot sequence
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 11:30 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:24:20PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >
> > > It's OK. I'd make it gfp_notsmellybits, and avoid the ~.
> > > And read_mostly.
> >
> > read_mostly is fine. gfp_notsmellybits isn't a nice name :-) Make it
> > gfp_allowedbits then. I did it backward on purpose though as the risk of
> > "missing" bits here (as we may add new ones) is higher and it seemed to
> > me generally simpler to just explicit spell out the ones to forbid
> > (also, on powerpc, &~ is one instruction :-)
>
> But just do the ~ in the assignment. No missing bits :)
Heh, ok.
> Yeah but it doesn't do it in the page allocator so it isn't
> really useful as a general allocator flags tweak. ATM it only
> helps this case of slab allocator hackery.
I though I did it in page_alloc.c too but I'm happy to be told what I
missed :-) The intend is certainly do have a general allocator flag
tweak.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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