[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <DD4IKU7O94WN.2VALE9M80XGQ7@kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 16:47:42 +0200
From: "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org>
To: "Elijah Wright" <git@...jahs.space>
Cc: "Miguel Ojeda" <ojeda@...nel.org>, "Alex Gaynor"
<alex.gaynor@...il.com>, "Boqun Feng" <boqun.feng@...il.com>, "Gary Guo"
<gary@...yguo.net>, Björn Roy Baron
<bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, "Benno Lossin" <lossin@...nel.org>, "Andreas
Hindborg" <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, "Alice Ryhl" <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
"Trevor Gross" <tmgross@...ch.edu>, <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Lorenzo Stoakes"
<lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>, "Vlastimil Babka" <vbabka@...e.cz>, "Liam R.
Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, "Uladzislau Rezki" <urezki@...il.com>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rust: slab: add basic slab module
On Thu Sep 25, 2025 at 11:54 AM CEST, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> (3) Implement a macro to generate a custom KmemCache Allocator trait
> implementation for every KmemCache instance with a static lifetime.
Thinking about it a bit more, I think we should go with option (3) for now.
With its only limitation being that it always binds the lifetime of a kmemcache
to the module lifetime, it still seems to be the best option, considering that
the alternatives require additional synchronization in hot paths, may *silently*
leak the kmemcache, cause significant code duplication or break dynamic
dispatch.
Tieing the kmemcache to the module lifetime should cover the vast majority of
use-cases; should we ever really need something else we can still revisit the
options.
Thanks,
Danilo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists