On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:06:06 -0700 (PDT) David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 21:39:01 -0700 (PDT) > > > Hmmmm... Maybe we are creating more of a mess with this. Isnt there some > > other way to handle these object. > > That's where I was going with the silly idea to use another > allocator :) > > Really, it would be great if we could treat kmalloc() objects > just like real pages. >From a high level, that seems like a bad idea. kmalloc() gives you a virtual address and you really shouldn't be poking around at that memory's underlying page's pageframe metadata. However we can of course do tasteless and weird things if the benefit is sufficient.... > Everything wants to do I/O on pages > but sometimes (like the networking) you have a kmalloc > chunk which is technically just a part of a page. hm. So what happens when two quite different threads of control are doing IO against two hunks of kmalloced memory which happen to come from the same page? Either some (kernel-wide) locking is needed, or that pageframe needs to be treated as readonly? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
