On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 22:25 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Wednesday 31 October 2007 23:17, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 21:46 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > And I'd prevent these ones from doing so. > > > > > > Without keeping track of "reserve" pages, which doesn't feel > > > too clean. > > > > The problem with that is that once a slab was allocated with the right > > allocation context, anybody can get objects from these slabs. > > [snip] > > I understand that. > > > > So we either reserve a page per object, which for 32 byte objects is a > > large waste, or we stop anybody who doesn't have the right permissions > > from obtaining objects. I took the latter approach. > > What I'm saying is that the slab allocator slowpath should always > just check watermarks against the current task. Instead of this > ->reserve stuff.
So what you say is to allocate a slab every time we take the slow path, even when we already have one? That sounds rather sub-optimal.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
