From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail190.messagelabs.com (mail190.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C221E6B004D for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:55:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from d01relay01.pok.ibm.com (d01relay01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.233]) by e7.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id nAOIocHC026829 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:50:38 -0500 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay01.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id nAOIt0kv126214 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:55:00 -0500 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id nAOIt0ag014903 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:55:00 -0500 Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:54:59 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: lockdep complaints in slab allocator Message-ID: <20091124185459.GH6831@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <1258729748.4104.223.camel@laptop> <1259002800.5630.1.camel@penberg-laptop> <1259003425.17871.328.camel@calx> <4B0ADEF5.9040001@cs.helsinki.fi> <1259080406.4531.1645.camel@laptop> <20091124170032.GC6831@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1259082756.17871.607.camel@calx> <1259086459.4531.1752.camel@laptop> <20091124182506.GG6831@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1259087511.4531.1775.camel@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1259087511.4531.1775.camel@laptop> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Matt Mackall , Pekka Enberg , linux-mm@kvack.org, cl@linux-foundation.org, LKML , Nick Piggin List-ID: On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 07:31:51PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 10:25 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > Well, I suppose I could make my scripts randomly choose the memory > > allocator, but I would rather not. ;-) > > Which is why I hope we'll soon be down to 2, SLOB for tiny systems and > SLQB for the rest of us, having 3 in-tree and 1 pending is pure and > simple insanity. So I should start specifying SLOB for my TINY_RCU tests, then. > Preferably SLQB will be small enough to also be able to get rid of SLOB, > but I've not recently seen any data on that particular issue. Given the existence of TINY_RCU, I would look pretty funny if I insisted on but a single implementation of core subsystems. ;-) Thanx, Paul -- 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