[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Questions about pagebuf code

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@infradead.org>; from hch@infradead.org on Sat, May 01, 2004 at 07:47:09PM +0100
References: <1083435856.2302.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20040501194709.A23768@infradead.org>
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)?



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>