From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:01:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: SLUB defrag pull request? In-Reply-To: <84144f020810221348j536f0d84vca039ff32676e2cc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <1223883004.31587.15.camel@penberg-laptop> <48FE6306.6020806@linux-foundation.org> <84144f020810221348j536f0d84vca039ff32676e2cc@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Pekka Enberg Cc: Miklos Szeredi , 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 Wed, 22 Oct 2008, Pekka Enberg wrote: > Actually, when debugging is enabled, it's customary to poison the > object, for example (see free_debug_processing() in mm/slub.c). So we > really can't "easily ensure" that in the allocator unless we by-pass > all the current debugging code. We may be talking of different frees here. Maybe what he means by freeing is that the object was put on the lru? And we understand a kfree(). -- 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