Re: [PATCH 12/30] mm: memory reserve management

[Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>]

On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 13:06 +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> We're trying to get rid of kfree() so I'd __kfree_reserve() could to
> mm/sl?b.c. Matt, thoughts?

I think you mean ksize there. My big issue is that we need to make it
clear that ksize pairs -only- with kmalloc and that
ksize(kmem_cache_alloc(...)) is a categorical error. Preferably, we do
this by giving it a distinct name, like kmalloc_size(). We can stick an
underbar in front of it to suggest you ought not be using it too.

> > +	/*
> > +	 * ksize gives the full allocated size vs the requested size we
> used to
> > +	 * charge; however since we round up to the nearest power of two,
> this
> > +	 * should all work nicely.
> > +	 */

SLOB doesn't do this, of course. But does that matter? I think you want
to charge the actual allocation size to the reserve in all cases, no?
That probably means calling ksize() on both alloc and free.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>