[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190930080613.GA5379@lst.de>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 10:06:13 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
"Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mm, sl[aou]b: guarantee natural alignment for
kmalloc(power-of-two)
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 06:36:32PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> So if anyone thinks this is a good idea, please express it (preferably
> in a formal way such as Acked-by), otherwise it seems the patch will be
> dropped (due to a private NACK, apparently).
I think we absolutely need something like this, and I'm sick and tired
of the people just claiming there is no problem.
>From the user POV I don't care if aligned allocations need a new
GFP_ALIGNED flag or not, but as far as I can tell the latter will
probably cause more overhead in practice than not having it.
So unless someone comes up with a better counter proposal to provide
aligned kmalloc of some form that doesn't require a giant amount of
boilerplate code in the users:
Acked^2-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists