Re: [patch] SLQB slab allocator

From: Nick Piggin
Date: Fri Jan 23 2009 - 10:15:37 EST

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 04:06:32PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 03:27:53PM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >
> > > Although I think I would prefer alloc_percpu, possibly with
> > > per_cpu_ptr(first_cpu(node_to_cpumask(node)), ...)
> >
> > I don't think we have the NUMA information available early enough
> > to do that.
> How early? At mem_init time it should be there because bootmem needed
> it already. It meaning the architectural level NUMA information.

node_to_cpumask(0) returned 0 at kmem_cache_init time.

> > OK, but if it is _possible_ for the node to gain memory, then you
> > can't do that of course.
> In theory it could gain memory through memory hotplug.


> > The cache_line_size() change wouldn't change slqb code significantly.
> > I have no problem with it, but I simply won't have time to do it and
> > test all architectures and get them merged and hold off merging
> > SLQB until they all get merged.
> I was mainly refering to the sysfs code here.


> > > Could you perhaps mark all the code you don't want to change?
> >
> > Primarily the debug code from SLUB.
> Ok so you could fix the sysfs code? @)
> Anyways, if you have such shared pieces perhaps it would be better
> if you just pull them all out into a separate file.

I'll see. I do plan to try making improvements to this peripheral
code but it just has to wait a little bit for other improvements

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at