[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <84144f020906150827k1b8c0ce4q5ed4d140f7ca869@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:27:08 +0300
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
lizf@...fujitsu.com, mingo@...e.hu, npiggin@...e.de,
yinghai@...nel.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL v2] Early SLAB fixes for 2.6.31
Hi Christoph,
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Pekka Enberg<penberg@...helsinki.fi> wrote:
>> > But does this matter? When the debugging options are turned off, there
>> > are no users for "real_gfp" and thus GCC optimizes everything away. For
>> > debugging configs, the extra cacheline load doesn't matter, does it?
>>
>> It cleaner to have the fastpath as small as possible. Having unused
>> variables in there is a bit confusing.
>
> OK, I can clean this up, no problem.
Actually, there's a slight complication here. If I push gfp mask to
__might_sleep(), lockdep_trace_alloc() and so on, the mask is
effective _everywhere_ even outside of slab. Yes, it makes sense if we
push the masking right down to the page allocator but I wonder if
that's something we want to do at this point?
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