On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:36:59 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > __GFP_MOVABLE The movability of a slab is determined by the > > > options specified at kmem_cache_create time. If this is > > > specified at kmalloc time then we will have some random > > > slabs movable and others not. > > > > Yes, they seem inappropriate. Especially the first two. > > The third one would randomize __GFP_MOVABLE allocs from the page allocator > since one __GFP_MOVABLE alloc may allocate a slab that is then used for > !__GFP_MOVABLE allocs. > > Maybe something like this? Note that we may get into some churn here > since slab allocations that any of these flags will BUG. > > > > GFP_LEVEL_MASK: Remove __GFP_COLD, __GFP_COMP and __GFPMOVABLE > > Add an explanation for the GFP_LEVEL_MASK and remove the flags > that should not be passed through derived allocators. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I think I'll duck this for now. Otherwise I have a suspicion that I'll be the first person to run it and I'm too old for such excitement. - 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/
