Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933830AbZFOSUA (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:20:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932966AbZFOSTr (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:19:47 -0400 Received: from mail-fx0-f211.google.com ([209.85.220.211]:46826 "EHLO mail-fx0-f211.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933718AbZFOSTp (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:19:45 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=QEjdKmExpF1mNYxJR8Ufa+TNgwLqdWGPf1WR+XP5A4+b7I7QpkY0CM76OVt6ClkEk/ MZVOeqDBTB9B1UNTXoD8qSyqhlH7nVzeei6A6d5tWEt9+zW05rMkXifChAnPuKTBDbf+ ekFnfVcy1++RkzkpNPk+eHv6HA6Yp9AdtzssE= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1245077891.23207.48.camel@penberg-laptop> <1245078661.23207.50.camel@penberg-laptop> <84144f020906150827k1b8c0ce4q5ed4d140f7ca869@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:19:46 +0300 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 81a4302443648ef3 Message-ID: <84144f020906151119y4d725c28j36a7d16b22e409e0@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [GIT PULL v2] Early SLAB fixes for 2.6.31 From: Pekka Enberg To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Christoph Lameter , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, mingo@elte.hu, npiggin@suse.de, yinghai@kernel.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1610 Lines: 36 Hi Linus, On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Pekka Enberg wrote: >> Actually, there's a slight complication here. If I push gfp mask to >> __might_sleep(), lockdep_trace_alloc() and so on, the mask is >> effective _everywhere_ even outside of slab. Yes, it makes sense if we >> push the masking right down to the page allocator but I wonder if >> that's something we want to do at this point? On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > This actually doesn't sound like a complication to me, but a potential > cleanup. > > Right now we already have that magic "system_state" test in __might_sleep. > Maybe we could get rid of that, and replace it with that test for gpf > bits. So we'd have just _one_ magic special case, and it's directly > related to memory allocation (which is really the reason for that system > state thing too). > > But maybe we have other reasons for that system_state special case, that > are independent. I have not checked. I'll double-check this but I think we can do that. The only problematic one is __lockdep_trace_alloc() which is used by the page allocator and the slab allocator but we only want to do masking in the latter one. But I guess we can just introduce a lockdep_trace_slab_alloc() or something that does it before calling the internal function. Pekka -- 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/