Re: lockdep complaints in slab allocator

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 07:31:51PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 10:25 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> > Well, I suppose I could make my scripts randomly choose the memory
> > allocator, but I would rather not.  ;-)
> 
> Which is why I hope we'll soon be down to 2, SLOB for tiny systems and
> SLQB for the rest of us, having 3 in-tree and 1 pending is pure and
> simple insanity.

So I should start specifying SLOB for my TINY_RCU tests, then.

> Preferably SLQB will be small enough to also be able to get rid of SLOB,
> but I've not recently seen any data on that particular issue.

Given the existence of TINY_RCU, I would look pretty funny if I insisted
on but a single implementation of core subsystems.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/