From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e33.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k0QN1p0Y003948 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:01:51 -0500 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.8) with ESMTP id k0QN48UO132410 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:04:08 -0700 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k0QN1pH7013729 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:01:51 -0700 Message-ID: <43D954D8.2050305@us.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 15:01:44 -0800 From: Matthew Dobson MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [patch 0/9] Critical Mempools References: <1138217992.2092.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sri@us.ibm.com, andrea@suse.de, pavel@suse.cz, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Matthew Dobson wrote: > > >>Using this new approach, a subsystem can create a mempool and then pass a >>pointer to this mempool on to all its slab allocations. Anytime one of its >>slab allocations needs to allocate memory that memory will be allocated >>through the specified mempool, rather than through alloc_pages_node() directly. > > > All subsystems will now get more complicated by having to add this > emergency functionality? Certainly not. Only subsystems that want to use emergency pools will get more complicated. If you have a suggestion as to how to implement a similar feature that is completely transparent to its users, I would *love* to hear it. I have tried to keep the changes to implement this functionality to a minimum. As the patches currently stand, existing slab allocator and mempool users can continue using these subsystems without modification. >>Feedback on these patches (against 2.6.16-rc1) would be greatly appreciated. > > > There surely must be a better way than revising all subsystems for > critical allocations. Again, I could not find any way to implement this functionality without forcing the users of the functionality to make some, albeit very minor, changes. Specific suggestions are more than welcome! :) Thanks! -Matt -- 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