From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761242AbYDRX0v (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:26:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752367AbYDRXXV (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:23:21 -0400 Received: from courier.cs.helsinki.fi ([128.214.9.1]:39075 "EHLO mail.cs.helsinki.fi" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754488AbYDRXXQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:23:16 -0400 Message-ID: <48092CFC.9090708@cs.helsinki.fi> Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 02:21:32 +0300 From: Pekka Enberg User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Macintosh/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Christoph Lameter CC: Vegard Nossum , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] slub: add hooks for kmemcheck References: <20080418220339.GC16586@damson.getinternet.no> <19f34abd0804181527i3b65e82bk2a5d8b3c2b196f9e@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, Christoph Lameter wrote: >>> Should this not go into some kmemcheck.h file? >> The implementations of these prototypes are in mm/slub_kmemcheck.c. >> They are only ever called from slub.c since they represent the >> interface between SLUB and kmemcheck. >> >> Would you rather have it in include/linux/slub_kmemcheck.h? > > Well lets see what Pekka says. Well, I've tried to push for "generic" kmemcheck hooks so that they can be used by SLAB/SLOB too but Vegard has always talked me out of it. Of course, I have long forgotten the rationale. But anyway, slub_kmemcheck.h sounds okay and I wonder if we should put it in mm/ instead of include/linux/ as it's not supposed to be included by anyone except SLUB? Christoph Lameter wrote: >> Currently, with SLAB/SLUB debugging enabled, the page flag will be >> cleared, then accessed in check_object(), thus generating a few >> accesses to the page. It is safer to delay the clearing of the page >> flag until no more accesses can be generated for the page. > > Hmmmm.. Okay that is already dealt with by a patch in Pekka's tree. And merged by Linus now. Pekka