From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: SLUB defrag pull request? From: Pekka Enberg In-Reply-To: References: <1223883004.31587.15.camel@penberg-laptop> <48FE6306.6020806@linux-foundation.org> <84144f020810221348j536f0d84vca039ff32676e2cc@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:10:31 +0300 Message-Id: <1224745831.25814.21.camel@penberg-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Miklos Szeredi Cc: cl@linux-foundation.org, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, hugh@veritas.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org List-ID: Hi Miklos, i>>?On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 00:10 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:i>>? > Actually, no: looking at the slub code it already makes sure that > objects are neither poisoned, nor touched in any way _if_ there is a > constructor for the object. And for good reason too, otherwise a > reused object would contain rubbish after a second allocation. There's no inherent reason why we cannot poison slab caches with a constructor. As a matter of fact SLAB does it which is probably why I got confused here. The only thing that needs to disable slab poisoning by design is SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU. But for SLUB, you're obviously right. i>>?On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 00:10 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > Come on guys, you should be the experts in this thing! Yeah, I know. Yet you're stuck with us. That's sad. Pekka -- 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: email@kvack.org