[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140919091151.GQ17875@mwanda>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 12:11:51 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: "Drokin, Oleg" <oleg.drokin@...el.com>
Cc: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>,
"<devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
"Dilger, Andreas" <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"<kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
"<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"<HPDD-discuss@...1.01.org>" <HPDD-discuss@...1.01.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: lustre: llite: Use kzalloc and rewrite null
tests
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 02:57:03AM +0000, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
> 4. Sometimes we need large allocations. general kmalloc is less
> reliable as system lives on and memory fragmentation worsens. So we
> have this "allocations over 2-4 pages get switched to vmalloc" logic,
> if there's a way to do that automatically - that would be great.
Julia's patch only changes OBD_ALLOC() functions and those are always
kmalloc so that's not an issue here.
The OBD_ALLOC_LARGE() macro is vmalloc() or kmalloc() if the size is
small enough. We don't really want to choose between kmalloc and
vmalloc automatically. My instinct is that we should change all the
OBD_ALLOC_LARGE() to vmalloc() and trust it to allocate them in the most
sane way possible. But I haven't really looked very closely.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
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