[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1245071245.23207.45.camel@penberg-laptop>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:07:25 +0300
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
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
Hi Hugh,
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 13:38 +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Fair enough that you jealously defend SL?B code from onslaught, but
> FWIW I strongly agree with Ben on all this. I cannot see the point
> of the pain of moving around SL?B versus bootmem, if we immediately
> force such a distinction (differently dressed) upon their users again.
I'm fine with the current approach but I don't think this is completely
accurate. Passing a GFP flag from top to bottom (like we do in existing
code) is pretty natural compared to passing a "boot" boolean or using
system_state checks to switch between kmalloc() and bootmem_alloc().
So even with a GFP_BOOT flag, I do see advantages in being able to use
kmalloc() et al almost universally.
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