[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1217263769.15724.32.camel@calx>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:49:29 -0500
From: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, trond.myklebust@....uio.no,
Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>,
Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, cl@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/30] mm: memory reserve management
On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 13:06 +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> We're trying to get rid of kfree() so I'd __kfree_reserve() could to
> mm/sl?b.c. Matt, thoughts?
I think you mean ksize there. My big issue is that we need to make it
clear that ksize pairs -only- with kmalloc and that
ksize(kmem_cache_alloc(...)) is a categorical error. Preferably, we do
this by giving it a distinct name, like kmalloc_size(). We can stick an
underbar in front of it to suggest you ought not be using it too.
> > + /*
> > + * ksize gives the full allocated size vs the requested size we
> used to
> > + * charge; however since we round up to the nearest power of two,
> this
> > + * should all work nicely.
> > + */
SLOB doesn't do this, of course. But does that matter? I think you want
to charge the actual allocation size to the reserve in all cases, no?
That probably means calling ksize() on both alloc and free.
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists