From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 In-reply-to: <1224745831.25814.21.camel@penberg-laptop> (message from Pekka Enberg on Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:10:31 +0300) Subject: Re: SLUB defrag pull request? References: <1223883004.31587.15.camel@penberg-laptop> <48FE6306.6020806@linux-foundation.org> <84144f020810221348j536f0d84vca039ff32676e2cc@mail.gmail.com> <1224745831.25814.21.camel@penberg-laptop> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: From: Miklos Szeredi Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:38:54 +0200 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: penberg@cs.helsinki.fi Cc: miklos@szeredi.hu, 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: On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Pekka Enberg wrote: > 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. Right, it just needs to call the constructor for every allocation. > > Come on guys, you should be the experts in this thing! > > Yeah, I know. Yet you're stuck with us. That's sad. No, I was a bit rude, sorry. I think the _real_ problem is that instead of fancy features like this defragmenter, SLUB should first concentrate on getting the code solid enough to replace the other allocators. Miklos -- 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