Re: [GIT PULL v2] Early SLAB fixes for 2.6.31

[Hugh Dickins]

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 08:45:27PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 12:27 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > Init code doesn't deserve to be more lazy than anybody else, and
> > > part of the reason why such a core piece of code is so crufty
> > > is exactly because people have been lazy there.
> > 
> > I think the main problem isn't necessarily init code per se, but the
> > pile of -common- code that can be called both at init time and later.
> 
> Just seems bogus argument. Everwhere else that does this (ie.
> allocations that are called from multiple allocation contexts)
> passes correct gfp flags down.

Fair enough that you jealously defend SL?B code from onslaught, but
FWIW I strongly agree with Ben on all this.  I cannot see the point
of the pain of moving around SL?B versus bootmem, if we immediately
force such a distinction (differently dressed) upon their users again.
I fully agree with Ben that it's the job of the allocator to provide
a service, and part of that job to understand its own limitations at
different stages of running.

Hugh
--
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/