Re: [patch] SLQB slab allocator

[Andi Kleen]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 03:27:53PM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>  
> > Although I think I would prefer alloc_percpu, possibly with
> > per_cpu_ptr(first_cpu(node_to_cpumask(node)), ...)
> 
> I don't think we have the NUMA information available early enough
> to do that. 

How early? At mem_init time it should be there because bootmem needed
it already. It meaning the architectural level NUMA information.

> OK, but if it is _possible_ for the node to gain memory, then you
> can't do that of course. 

In theory it could gain memory through memory hotplug.

> > I'm sure such a straight forward change could be still put into .29
> > 
> > > reasonable to merge. But it would be a fine cleanup.
> > 
> > Hmm to be honest it's a little weird to post so much code and then
> > say you can't change large parts of it.
> 
> The cache_line_size() change wouldn't change slqb code significantly.
> I have no problem with it, but I simply won't have time to do it and
> test all architectures and get them merged and hold off merging
> SLQB until they all get merged.

I was mainly refering to the sysfs code here.
 
 
> > Could you perhaps mark all the code you don't want to change?
> 
> Primarily the debug code from SLUB.

Ok so you could fix the sysfs code? @)

Anyways, if you have such shared pieces perhaps it would be better
if you just pull them all out into a separate file. 

-Andi
-- 
ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/