From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Damien Wyart Subject: Re: [git pull] vfs.git bits and pieces Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 23:42:54 +0100 Message-ID: <20131120224254.GA3939@brouette> References: <20131120174211.GF10323@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20131120174712.GG10323@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Al Viro , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel To: Linus Torvalds Return-path: Received: from mailhost-z6-p4.mangoosta.org ([195.5.209.120]:22015 "EHLO smtp-delay1.nerim.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754021Ab3KTWuH (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Nov 2013 17:50:07 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > > BTW, something odd happened to mm/memory.c - either a mangled patch > > or a lost followup: > > commit ea1e7ed33708 > > mm: create a separate slab for page->ptl allocation > > Fair enough, and yes, it does create that separate slab. The problem > > is, it's still using kmalloc/kfree for those beasts - > > page_ptl_cachep isn't used at all... * Linus Torvalds [2013-11-20 14:33]: > Ok, it looks straightforward enough to just replace the kmalloc/kfree > with using a slab allocation using the page_ptl_cachep pointer. I'd do > it myself, but I would like to know how it got lost? Also, much > testing to make sure the cachep is initialized early enough. The initial sending had the proper hunks at the end, so something really got lost afterwards... https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/10/22/129 -- Damien Wyart