[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150501200221.GF14154@mwanda>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 23:02:21 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: "Simmons, James A." <simmonsja@...l.gov>
Cc: "'Julia Lawall'" <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>,
Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
"devel@...verdev.osuosl.org" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
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@...ts.01.org" <HPDD-discuss@...1.01.org>
Subject: Re: [HPDD-discuss] [PATCH 2/11] Staging: lustre: fld: Use kzalloc
and kfree
We are hopefully going to get rid of OBD_ALLOC_LARGE() as well, though.
It's simple enough to write a function:
void *obd_zalloc(size_t size)
{
if (size > 4 * PAGE_CACHE_SIZE)
return vzalloc(size);
else
return kmalloc(size, GFP_NOFS);
}
Except, huh? Shouldn't we be using GFP_NOFS for the vzalloc() side?
There was some discussion of that GFP_NOFS was a bit buggy back in 2010
(http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=128942194520631&w=4) but the current
lustre code doesn't try to pass GFP_NOFS.
Then it's simple enough to change OBD_FREE_LARGE() to kvfree().
Also it's weird that only the lustre people have thought of this trick
to allocate big chunks of RAM and no one else has. What would happen if
we just change vmalloc() so it worked this way for everyone?
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