From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 21:54:39 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <20070223.215439.92580943.davem@davemloft.net> Subject: Re: SLUB: The unqueued Slab allocator From: David Miller In-Reply-To: References: <20070224142835.4c7a3207.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org From: Christoph Lameter Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 21:47:36 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: To: clameter@engr.sgi.com Cc: kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, andi@firstfloor.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: > On Sat, 24 Feb 2007, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > >From a viewpoint of a crash dump user, this merging will make crash dump > > investigation very very very difficult. > > The general caches already merge lots of users depending on their sizes. > So we already have the situation and we have tools to deal with it. But this doesn't happen for things like biovecs, and that will make debugging painful. If a crash happens because of a corrupted biovec-256 I want to know it was a biovec not some anonymous clone of kmalloc256. Please provide at a minimum a way to turn the merging off. I also agree with Andi in that merging could mess up how object type local lifetimes help reduce fragmentation in object pools. -- 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