Re: lockdep complaints in slab allocator
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Date: 2009-12-01 22:41:48
Also in:
lkml
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Matt Mackall wrote:
And it's not even something that -most- of embedded devices will want to use, so it can't be keyed off CONFIG_EMBEDDED anyway. If you've got even 16MB of memory, you probably want to use a SLAB-like allocator (ie not SLOB). But there are -millions- of devices being shipped that don't have that much memory, a situation that's likely to continue until you can fit a larger Linux system entirely in a <$1 microcontroller-sized device (probably 5 years off still).
What qualifying criteria can we use to automatically select slob for a kernel or the disqualifying criteria to automatically select slub as a default, then? It currently depends on CONFIG_EMBEDDED, but it still requires the user to specifically chose the allocator over another. Could we base this decision on another config option enabled for systems with less than 16MB?
This thread is annoying. The problem that triggered this thread is not in SLOB/SLUB/SLQB, nor even in our bog-standard 10yo deep-maintenance known-to-work SLAB code. The problem was a FALSE POSITIVE from lockdep on code that PREDATES lockdep itself. There is nothing in this thread to indicate that there is a serious problem maintaining multiple allocators. In fact, considerably more time has been spent (as usual) debating non-existent problems than fixing real ones.
We could move the discussion on the long-term maintainable aspects of multiple slab allocators to a new thread if you'd like. -- 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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>