[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0906170941490.16802@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:45:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...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 Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>
> So how does the page allocator fit in this new scheme of things? I have
> been looking at doing the cleanups you and Christoph suggested and it
> seems to me we need a 'system_gfp_mask' that's respected by basically
> everyone, including __might_sleep() and other debugging functions.
So I'm very much ok with the whole "use magic gfp_mask to indicate what
works at what stage". And yes, I think it makes sense to extend it to the
page allocator and might_sleep too, because GFP_KERNEL has all the same
issues regardless of whether it's about page allocation or about slab
allocators. And any "might_sleep" suppression really does tend to be about
the exact same thing.
So the only thing I was arguing against wrt Christoph was really that I
think this thing should be an "internal" thing, and never ever be used as
a flag for others to decide what to do. We do _not_ want drivers or other
crazy people using it to decide what state they are running in.
Keep it simple, and keep it minimal, in other words.
Linus
--
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