[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1245215916.5604.5.camel@penberg-laptop>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:18:36 +0300
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
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
Hi Linus,
On Tue, 2009-06-16 at 12:33 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I mean that there should never be any _need_ for dynamically querying
> whether slab is available or not. Nothing should ever do it, because we
> should strive for slab being available so early that anything that happens
> before it _knows_ that it is special case code (eg "set up initial page
> tables") and would never have any reason what-so-ever for even
> conditionally asking "should I use slab".
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.
If we want to keep the masking within the slab allocator, we need to
make sure there are two sets of APIs: one for slab and one for the page
allocator. Otherwise we end up masking in the debugging checks but not
in page_alloc().
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