From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx174.postini.com [74.125.245.174]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 428506B005D for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 02:25:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: by wibhm6 with SMTP id hm6so286352wib.8 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:25:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1344019897-3769-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> References: <1344019897-3769-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 09:25:46 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] slub: use free_page instead of put_page for freeing kmalloc allocation From: Pekka Enberg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Glauber Costa Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, David Rientjes , Christoph Lameter , Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Glauber Costa wrote: > When freeing objects, the slub allocator will most of the time free > empty pages by calling __free_pages(). But high-order kmalloc will be > diposed by means of put_page() instead. It makes no sense to call > put_page() in kernel pages that are provided by the object allocators, > so we shouldn't be doing this ourselves. Aside from the consistency > change, we don't change the flow too much. put_page()'s would call its > dtor function, which is __free_pages. We also already do all of the > Compound page tests ourselves, and the Mlock test we lose don't really > matter. > > [v2: modified Changelog ] > > Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa > Acked-by: Christoph Lameter > CC: David Rientjes > CC: Pekka Enberg Applied, thanks! -- 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