Re: [GIT PULL] scheduler fixes

From: Matt Mackall
Date: Mon May 25 2009 - 11:03:50 EST

On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 11:47 +0300, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
> On Mon, 25 May 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Ok, i think this all looks pretty realistic - but there's quite a
> > bit of layering on top of pending changes in the x86 and irq trees.
> > We could do this on top of those topic branches in -tip, and rebase
> > in the merge window. Or delay it to .32.
> >
> > ... plus i think we are _very_ close to being able to remove all of
> > bootmem on x86 (with some compatibility/migration mechanism in
> > place). Which bootmem calls do we have before kmalloc init with
> > Pekka's patch applied? I think it's mostly the page table init code.
> >
> > ( beyond the page allocator internal use - where we could use
> > straight e820 based APIs that clip memory off from the beginning
> > of existing e820 RAM ranges - enriched with NUMA/SRAT locality
> > info. )
> OK, here's a version of the patch with Yinghai's rebasing on top of
> tip/master. All in-kernel memory allocators boot cleanly now on my
> configuration (I did not try SLQB but it probably needs fixing). I would
> appreciate if someone gave SLAB+NUMA configuration a try.
> Ingo, I don't really want to carry this in slab.git so perhaps you could
> put this and Yinghai's irq init cleanup in a "earlyslab" branch in tip for
> testing?
> And oh, Christoph/Matt, can I have your NAK/ACK for this patch?

Looks ok to me, though I'd probably split it into three parts (slab,
slub, init).

For future reference, 0xbaadf00d ought to move into poison.h.

-- : development and support for Mercurial and Linux

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at