Subject: Re: lockdep complaints in slab allocator
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>,
       linux-mm@kvack.org, cl@linux-foundation.org,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <20091124182506.GG6831@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <1258714328.11284.522.camel@laptop>
	 <4B067816.6070304@cs.helsinki.fi> <1258729748.4104.223.camel@laptop>
	 <1259002800.5630.1.camel@penberg-laptop> <1259003425.17871.328.camel@calx>
	 <4B0ADEF5.9040001@cs.helsinki.fi> <1259080406.4531.1645.camel@laptop>
	 <20091124170032.GC6831@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	 <1259082756.17871.607.camel@calx> <1259086459.4531.1752.camel@laptop>
	 <20091124182506.GG6831@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:31:51 +0100
Message-ID: <1259087511.4531.1775.camel@laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 710
Lines: 17

On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 10:25 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> Well, I suppose I could make my scripts randomly choose the memory
> allocator, but I would rather not.  ;-)

Which is why I hope we'll soon be down to 2, SLOB for tiny systems and
SLQB for the rest of us, having 3 in-tree and 1 pending is pure and
simple insanity.

Preferably SLQB will be small enough to also be able to get rid of SLOB,
but I've not recently seen any data on that particular issue.

--
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/