On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:36:59 -0700 (PDT)
Christoph Lameter <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > > __GFP_MOVABLE The movability of a slab is determined by the
> > > options specified at kmem_cache_create time. If this is
> > > specified at kmalloc time then we will have some random
> > > slabs movable and others not.
> >
> > Yes, they seem inappropriate. Especially the first two.
>
> The third one would randomize __GFP_MOVABLE allocs from the page allocator
> since one __GFP_MOVABLE alloc may allocate a slab that is then used for
> !__GFP_MOVABLE allocs.
>
> Maybe something like this? Note that we may get into some churn here
> since slab allocations that any of these flags will BUG.
>
>
>
> GFP_LEVEL_MASK: Remove __GFP_COLD, __GFP_COMP and __GFPMOVABLE
>
> Add an explanation for the GFP_LEVEL_MASK and remove the flags
> that should not be passed through derived allocators.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
I think I'll duck this for now. Otherwise I have a suspicion that I'll
be the first person to run it and I'm too old for such excitement.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
