Re: SLUB defrag pull request?

[Pekka Enberg]

Hi Miklos,

ïOn Thu, 2008-10-23 at 00:10 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:ï
> 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. As a matter of fact SLAB does it which is probably why I
got confused here. The only thing that needs to disable slab poisoning
by design is SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU.

But for SLUB, you're obviously right.

ïOn Thu, 2008-10-23 at 00:10 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> Come on guys, you should be the experts in this thing!

Yeah, I know. Yet you're stuck with us. That's sad.

		Pekka

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/