Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752691AbZFOMjS (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:39:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751727AbZFOMjI (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:39:08 -0400 Received: from mk-filter-4-a-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com ([212.74.100.55]:36979 "EHLO mk-filter-4-a-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751474AbZFOMjH (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:39:07 -0400 X-Trace: 211543255/mk-filter-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com/B2C/$b2c-THROTTLED-DYNAMIC/b2c-CUSTOMER-DYNAMIC-IP/79.69.113.131/None/hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk X-SBRS: None X-RemoteIP: 79.69.113.131 X-IP-MAIL-FROM: hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk X-SMTP-AUTH: X-MUA: X-IP-BHB: Once X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnECAIfdNUpPRXGD/2dsb2JhbAAI03mEDQU X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.42,222,1243810800"; d="scan'208";a="211543255" Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:38:12 +0100 (BST) From: Hugh Dickins X-X-Sender: hugh@sister.anvils To: Nick Piggin cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Pekka Enberg , Heiko Carstens , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, cl@linux-foundation.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, mingo@elte.hu, yinghai@kernel.org Subject: Re: [GIT PULL v2] Early SLAB fixes for 2.6.31 In-Reply-To: <20090615112355.GB6012@wotan.suse.de> Message-ID: References: <20090615081831.GA5411@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <84144f020906150210w7fa29042xc12efb4a087e3d26@mail.gmail.com> <20090615094148.GC1314@wotan.suse.de> <1245059476.12400.7.camel@pasglop> <1245059859.23207.16.camel@penberg-laptop> <20090615102737.GA20461@wotan.suse.de> <1245062727.12400.23.camel@pasglop> <20090615112355.GB6012@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1376 Lines: 28 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/