From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 13:25:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] make slab gfp fair In-Reply-To: <1179172994.2942.49.camel@lappy> Message-ID: References: <20070514131904.440041502@chello.nl> <20070514161224.GC11115@waste.org> <1179164453.2942.26.camel@lappy> <1179170912.2942.37.camel@lappy> <1179172994.2942.49.camel@lappy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Matt Mackall , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Thomas Graf , David Miller , Andrew Morton , Daniel Phillips , Pekka Enberg List-ID: On Mon, 14 May 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > The thing is; I'm not needing any speed, as long as the machine stay > > > alive I'm good. However others are planing to build a full reserve based > > > allocator to properly fix the places that now use __GFP_NOFAIL and > > > situation such as in add_to_swap(). > > > > Well I have version of SLUB here that allows you do redirect the alloc > > calls at will. Adds a kmem_cache_ops structure and in the kmem_cache_ops > > structure you can redirect allocation and freeing of slabs (not objects!) > > at will. Would that help? > > I'm not sure; I need kmalloc as well. We could add a kmalloc_ops structuret to allow redirects? -- 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