| To: | Craig Tierney <ctierney@xxxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Questions about pagebuf code |
| From: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 3 May 2004 16:24:15 +1000 |
| Cc: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20040501194709.A23768@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on Sat, May 01, 2004 at 07:47:09PM +0100 |
| References: | <1083435856.2302.3.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040501194709.A23768@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Sat, May 01, 2004 at 07:47:09PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> > 4) Would there be any reason (except performance) not to change
> > MAX_SLAB_SIZE to a smaller values (like 0), to test the behavior
Oh, missed this - setting MAX_SLAB_SIZE to 0 will make all
allocations go the vmalloc route... under no circumstances
is that what you want to do.
> > when only kmalloc is used to allocation memory?
>
> vmalloc can't be done from inside a spinlock. Now that you mention
> it I think we should explicitly check for that in the kmem_alloc code
> instead of relying KM_NOSLEEP requests beeing small enough all the time..
By adding {BUG/WARN}_ON checks on irqs_disabled() in kmem.h?
(is there a 2.4 equivalent interface for that)?
cheers.
--
Nathan
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Unsupported sector size, Nathan Scott |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | PARTIAL TAKE 913919 - remove some dead code, Nathan Scott |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Questions about pagebuf code, Craig Tierney |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Questions about pagebuf code, Craig Tierney |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |