Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 2 Jun 2008 16:01:05 +0900 | From | Paul Mundt <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] nommu: fix kobjsize() for SLOB and SLUB |
| |
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 09:58:01AM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote: > Hi Paul, > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org> wrote: > > Well, with that modified version of your patch I posted, even if your > > previous PG_slab patches aren't applied, kobjsize() doesn't behave any > > worse than it presently does in terms of object size accuracy. > > > > In short: PG_slab doesn't get set and ksize() is never called, so we get > > the same degree of accuracy as the existing implementation, and the > > oopses get fixed (and the comments are still accurate, too!). So I think > > it's worth applying. Verified on all of SLUB/SLOB/SLAB. > > Agreed. Can you send this to Andrew? > > Reviewed-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> > Will do!
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org> wrote: > > As for the call-site question, perhaps I'm misunderstanding your > > question. alloc_vfsmnt() is the first to call kmem_cache_zalloc() during > > boot-up on my system, but I'm not sure what relevance this has to > > anything? Accurately measuring kmem_cache_alloc() and static allocations > > is going to need quite a bit more of a re-think, but that's out of scope > > for 2.6.26. Presently I'd rather have my system booting first :-) > > David already mentioned some (most?) of the kobjsize() calls can go > away and I think we should pursue that for 2.6.27.
Ah, the kobjsize() calls is what you were getting at. Yes, getting rid of those would be a good plan. I'll start looking at that more in-depth once I've got some of my other 2.6.27 stuff out of the way. That's definitely one interface that needs to be killed off with extreme prejudice..
| |