From: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: JoonSoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] slab: move kmem_cache_free to common code
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 18:15:20 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5086A678.7010403@parallels.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0000013a8df775ea-2411bbc8-8025-4514-8b58-ef007d11beef-000000@email.amazonses.com>
On 10/23/2012 06:12 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
>
>> I do agree, but since freeing is ultimately dependent on the allocator
>> layout, I don't see a clean way of doing this without dropping tears of
>> sorrow around. The calls in slub/slab/slob would have to be somehow
>> inlined. Hum... maybe it is possible to do it from
>> include/linux/sl*b_def.h...
>>
>> Let me give it a try and see what I can come up with.
>
> The best solution would be something that would have a consolidated
> kmem_cache_free() in include/linux/slab.h.
>
I don't know what exactly do you have in mind, but since the cache
layouts are very different, this is quite hard to do without incurring
without function calls anyway.
Do take a look at what I sent in response to that, and tell me what do
you think.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: JoonSoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] slab: move kmem_cache_free to common code
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 18:15:20 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5086A678.7010403@parallels.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0000013a8df775ea-2411bbc8-8025-4514-8b58-ef007d11beef-000000@email.amazonses.com>
On 10/23/2012 06:12 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
>
>> I do agree, but since freeing is ultimately dependent on the allocator
>> layout, I don't see a clean way of doing this without dropping tears of
>> sorrow around. The calls in slub/slab/slob would have to be somehow
>> inlined. Hum... maybe it is possible to do it from
>> include/linux/sl*b_def.h...
>>
>> Let me give it a try and see what I can come up with.
>
> The best solution would be something that would have a consolidated
> kmem_cache_free() in include/linux/slab.h.
>
I don't know what exactly do you have in mind, but since the cache
layouts are very different, this is quite hard to do without incurring
without function calls anyway.
Do take a look at what I sent in response to that, and tell me what do
you think.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-23 14:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-22 14:05 [PATCH 0/2] move kmem_cache_free to common code Glauber Costa
2012-10-22 14:05 ` Glauber Costa
2012-10-22 14:05 ` [PATCH 1/2] slab: commonize slab_cache field in struct page Glauber Costa
2012-10-22 14:05 ` Glauber Costa
2012-10-22 14:44 ` Christoph Lameter
2012-10-22 14:44 ` Christoph Lameter
2012-10-24 8:58 ` Pekka Enberg
2012-10-24 8:58 ` Pekka Enberg
2012-10-22 14:05 ` [PATCH 2/2] slab: move kmem_cache_free to common code Glauber Costa
2012-10-22 14:05 ` Glauber Costa
2012-10-22 14:45 ` Christoph Lameter
2012-10-22 14:45 ` Christoph Lameter
2012-10-22 15:10 ` Glauber Costa
2012-10-22 15:10 ` Glauber Costa
2012-10-23 0:48 ` JoonSoo Kim
2012-10-23 0:48 ` JoonSoo Kim
2012-10-23 8:07 ` Glauber Costa
2012-10-23 8:07 ` Glauber Costa
2012-10-23 10:52 ` Glauber Costa
2012-10-23 10:52 ` Glauber Costa
2012-10-23 15:43 ` JoonSoo Kim
2012-10-23 15:43 ` JoonSoo Kim
2012-10-24 8:31 ` Glauber Costa
2012-10-24 8:31 ` Glauber Costa
2012-10-24 13:39 ` Glauber Costa
2012-10-24 13:39 ` Glauber Costa
2012-10-23 14:12 ` Christoph Lameter
2012-10-23 14:12 ` Christoph Lameter
2012-10-23 14:15 ` Glauber Costa [this message]
2012-10-23 14:15 ` Glauber Costa
2012-10-23 14:34 ` Christoph Lameter
2012-10-23 14:34 ` Christoph Lameter
2012-10-23 18:16 ` Christoph Lameter
2012-10-23 18:16 ` Christoph Lameter
2012-10-24 8:56 ` Pekka Enberg
2012-10-24 8:56 ` Pekka Enberg
2012-10-24 10:03 ` Glauber Costa
2012-10-24 10:03 ` Glauber Costa
2012-10-24 8:56 ` Pekka Enberg
2012-10-24 8:56 ` Pekka Enberg
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5086A678.7010403@parallels.com \
--to=glommer@parallels.com \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=js1304@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.