[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1270162821.7101.138.camel@pasglop>
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 10:00:21 +1100
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Rabin Vincent <rabin@....in>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, penberg@...helsinki.fi,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: start_kernel(): bug: interrupts were enabled early
On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 12:06 +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Can we provide a kmem_cache_create_early()? One that takes no locks and gets
> cleaned up with the other __init stuff?
Yuck. I hate having to expose more APIs. Also the problem with that is
means callers have to know. So we need to propagate up all call chains
etc... (ie, radix_tree_init_early(), etc...)
This is pretty much exactly the discussion we had when moving sl*b
early, and back then, the final word from Linus (heh, for once he agreed
with me :-) was that this made no sense.
We can bury logic inside kmem_cache_create() though, it's not -that- a
hot path.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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