From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754761Ab0JNGWi (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Oct 2010 02:22:38 -0400 Received: from courier.cs.helsinki.fi ([128.214.9.1]:57315 "EHLO mail.cs.helsinki.fi" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754702Ab0JNGWh (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Oct 2010 02:22:37 -0400 Message-ID: <4CB6A1AB.4030800@cs.helsinki.fi> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 09:22:35 +0300 From: Pekka Enberg User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Rientjes CC: Christoph Lameter , Andrew Morton , Eric Dumazet , David Miller , netdev , Michael Chan , Eilon Greenstein , Christoph Hellwig , LKML , Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: allocate skbs on local node References: <1286838210.30423.128.camel@edumazet-laptop> <1286839363.30423.130.camel@edumazet-laptop> <1286859925.30423.184.camel@edumazet-laptop> <20101011230322.f0f6dd47.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1286866699.30423.234.camel@edumazet-laptop> <20101012002435.f51f2c0e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1286869793.2732.24.camel@edumazet-laptop> <20101012005856.994bea6d.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4CB441CB.2000708@cs.helsinki.fi> 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 On Wed, 13 Oct 2010, Christoph Lameter wrote: >>> I was going to mention that as an idea, but I thought storing the metadata >>> for certain debugging features might differ from the two allocators so >>> substantially that it would be even more convoluted and difficult to >>> maintain? >> >> We could have some callbacks to store allocator specific metadata? On 10/14/10 1:41 AM, David Rientjes wrote: > It depends on whether we could share the same base for both slab (unified > allocator) and slub, which you snipped from your reply, that would make > this cleaner. Argh. Why would we want to introduce something that's effectively a new allocator based on SLUB? If there's something controversial in the current patch series, lets just keep it out of mainline. A "rewrite" is the reason we're in this mess so lets not repeat the same mistake again! Pekka