On Fri, 10 Aug 2012, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2012/8/9 22:06, Christoph Lameter (Open Source) wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> >
> >> Now, We have node masks for both N_NORMAL_MEMORY and
> >> N_HIGH_MEMORY to distinguish between normal and highm
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012, Hanjun Guo wrote:
On 2012/8/9 22:06, Christoph Lameter (Open Source) wrote:
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Hanjun Guo wrote:
Now, We have node masks for both N_NORMAL_MEMORY and
N_HIGH_MEMORY to distinguish between normal and highmem on platforms such
as x86.
But we still
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Shuah Khan wrote:
> Moving these checks into kmem_cache_sanity_check() would mean return
> path handling will change. The first block of sanity checks for name,
> and size etc. are done before holding the slab_mutex and the second
> block that checks the slab lists is done
On Mon, 6 Aug 2012, Shuah Khan wrote:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_VM
> +static int kmem_cache_sanity_check(const char *name, size_t size)
Why do we pass "size" in? AFAICT there is no need to.
> @@ -53,48 +93,17 @@ struct kmem_cache *kmem_cache_create(const char *name,
> size_t size, size_t align
>
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> Now, We have node masks for both N_NORMAL_MEMORY and
> N_HIGH_MEMORY to distinguish between normal and highmem on platforms such as
> x86.
> But we still don't have such a mechanism to distinguish between "normal" and
> "movable"
> memory.
What is the
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Hanjun Guo wrote:
Now, We have node masks for both N_NORMAL_MEMORY and
N_HIGH_MEMORY to distinguish between normal and highmem on platforms such as
x86.
But we still don't have such a mechanism to distinguish between normal and
movable
memory.
What is the exact
On Mon, 6 Aug 2012, Shuah Khan wrote:
+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_VM
+static int kmem_cache_sanity_check(const char *name, size_t size)
Why do we pass size in? AFAICT there is no need to.
@@ -53,48 +93,17 @@ struct kmem_cache *kmem_cache_create(const char *name,
size_t size, size_t align
{
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Shuah Khan wrote:
Moving these checks into kmem_cache_sanity_check() would mean return
path handling will change. The first block of sanity checks for name,
and size etc. are done before holding the slab_mutex and the second
block that checks the slab lists is done after
On Mon, 6 Aug 2012, Shuah Khan wrote:
> No reason, just something I am used to doing :) inline is a good idea. I
> can fix that easily and send v2 patch.
Leave that to the compiler. There is no performance reason that would
give a benefit from forcing inline.
--
To unsubscribe from this list:
On Mon, 6 Aug 2012, Shuah Khan wrote:
No reason, just something I am used to doing :) inline is a good idea. I
can fix that easily and send v2 patch.
Leave that to the compiler. There is no performance reason that would
give a benefit from forcing inline.
--
To unsubscribe from this list:
10 matches
Mail list logo
