[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170807173311.GB25038@linux-80c1.suse>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 10:33:11 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Guillaume Knispel <guillaume.knispel@...ersonicimagine.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>,
Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
Marc Pardo <marc.pardo@...ersonicimagine.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipc: optimize semget/shmget/msgget for lots of keys
On Thu, 03 Aug 2017, Guillaume Knispel wrote:
>In linux/init.h I saw that a pure_initcall is reserved to only
>initialize variables and must have no dependency on anything else;
>I interpreted that, + "pure" in the name, thinking we should not e.g.
>allocate in a pure_initcall, however I see that net_ns_init() calls
>kmem_cache_create() and others, so maybe we can keep ipc_ns_init() as
>a pure_initcall?
Yeah, I don't see this as a limitation wrt link order. Among others,
filelocks also do this. Not to mention futexes with alloc_large_system_hash().
So lets just keep this as is.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists