[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55310033.1060108@nod.at>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 14:44:35 +0200
From: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Hajime Tazaki <tazaki@....wide.ad.jp>
CC: linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Jekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Javid Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Jndrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Ryo Nakamura <upa@...ena.net>,
Christoph Paasch <christoph.paasch@...il.com>,
Mathieu Lacage <mathieu.lacage@...il.com>,
libos-nuse@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 02/11] slab: add private memory allocator header
for arch/lib
Am 17.04.2015 um 14:17 schrieb Christoph Lameter:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2015, Hajime Tazaki wrote:
>
>> add header includion for CONFIG_LIB to wrap kmalloc and co. This will
>> bring malloc(3) based allocator used by arch/lib.
>
> Maybe add another allocator insteadl? SLLB which implements memory
> management using malloc()?
Yeah, that's a good idea.
Hajime, another question, do you really want a malloc/free backend?
I'm not a mm expert, but does malloc() behave exactly as the kernel
counter parts?
In UML we allocate a big file on the host side, mmap() it and give this mapping
to the kernel as physical memory such that any kernel allocator can work with it.
Thanks,
//richard
--
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