On Wednesday, 21 March 2007 14:36, Pekka J Enberg wrote: > On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > With __kmem_cache_free you would set #1 I hope, but if > > nobody would use this - debugging time wouldn't change. > > I think you got it backwards. I suggested making the _current_ > kmem_cache_free() deal with NULL (so everyone will get it) and add a new > optimized __kmem_cache_free() for those call-sites that really need it. > > On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > This could be acceptable, if there were no problems > > with fixing the errors. But there are problems - bugs > > like this aren't fixed on time - maybe because people > > waste too much time per bug? > > You're barking up the wrong tree here, Jarek. I strongly feel that we > should be more defensive in the slab for the exact reasons you outlined. > There's bunch of bug reports people seem to dismiss as slab errors where > in fact it's caused by a buggy caller. > > That said, Eric and Andrew make a good point about kmem_cache_free() being > in super-hot paths which clearly must be addressed. The only reason > holding me back is the fact that I don't know what those super-hot > call-sites are (with the exception of network skb allocation) so I am > really in no position to make that patch.
IMHO one way to find them is to actually slow down kmem_cache_free() and see where the performance is hurt. Greetings, Rafael - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
