[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100513191838.217F.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 19:43:49 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [RFC] mm: generic adaptive large memory allocation APIs
> On 05/13/2010 11:40 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> >>>> Anyway as this is a replacement for explicit tests, it shouldn't change
> >>>> the behaviour in any way. Obviously when a user doesn't need virtually
> >>>> contiguous space, he shouldn't use this interface at all.
> >>>
> >>> Why can't we make fdtable virtually contiguous free?
> >>
> >> This is possible, but the question is why to make the code more complex?
> >
> > because it's broken.
>
> Well, could you explain what exactly is broken about
> x = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!x)
> x = vmalloc(size);
> ? Is is that kmalloc doesn't return until is has the memory to return
> when asking for order(size) <= COSTLY_ORDER? I think this is expected.
Well, but fdtable doesn't really need contenious memory. no?
To make API mean we recommend to use it. but I don't hope to spread this
wrong habit. Instead, to kill it seems better.
--
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