[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1245059859.23207.16.camel@penberg-laptop>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:57:39 +0300
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, lizf@...fujitsu.com, mingo@...e.hu,
yinghai@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL v2] Early SLAB fixes for 2.6.31
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 19:51 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> I think the boot order is too likely to change to make it a sane thing
> to have all call sites "know" at what point they are in the boot
> process. In your example, what does GFP_BOOT would mean ? Before
> scheduler is initialized ? before interrupts are on ?
Btw, I think this is a pretty important point. Linus suggested trying to
make slab initialization even earlier than what we now have. If we do
require GFP_BOOT annotations, then we'd need to sprinkle those all over
the place when we do that.
So from code shuffling point of view, it's better to support GFP_KERNEL
(almost) everywhere rather than require special annotations.
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