Messages in this thread | | | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: SL*B: drop kmem cache argument from constructor | Date | Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:44:57 +1000 |
| |
On Saturday 12 July 2008 05:22, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:44:16 -0500 Jon Tollefson <kniht@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > > > Kmem cache passed to constructor is only needed for constructors that > > > are themselves multiplexeres. Nobody uses this "feature", nor does > > > anybody uses passed kmem cache in non-trivial way, so pass only pointer > > > to object. > > > > > > Non-trivial places are: > > > arch/powerpc/mm/init_64.c > > > arch/powerpc/mm/hugetlbpage.c > > > > ...<snip>... > > > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/hugetlbpage.c > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/hugetlbpage.c > > > @@ -595,9 +595,9 @@ static int __init hugepage_setup_sz(char *str) > > > } > > > __setup("hugepagesz=", hugepage_setup_sz); > > > > > > -static void zero_ctor(struct kmem_cache *cache, void *addr) > > > +static void zero_ctor(void *addr) > > > { > > > - memset(addr, 0, kmem_cache_size(cache)); > > > + memset(addr, 0, HUGEPTE_TABLE_SIZE); > > > > This isn't going to work with the multiple huge page size support. The > > HUGEPTE_TABLE_SIZE macro now takes a parameter with of the mmu psize > > index to indicate the size of page. > > hrm. I suppose we could hold our noses and use ksize(), assuming that > we're ready to use ksize() at this stage in the object's lifetime. > > Better would be to just use kmem_cache_zalloc()?
As this is hugepages we're talking about, probably yes. But note that page tables are one of those things where we (I?) think constructors are probably a good idea -- they tend to be very sparse.
| |