On Tue 05-01-16 15:26:02, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 02:59:03PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > > 3) vmalloc() is for large allocations. They will be page-aligned,
> > > but *not* physically contiguous. OTOH, large physically contiguous
> > > allocations are generally a bad idea.
On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 02:59:03PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > 3) vmalloc() is for large allocations. They will be page-aligned,
> > but *not* physically contiguous. OTOH, large physically contiguous
> > allocations are generally a bad idea. Unlike other allocators, there's
> > no variant th
[CCing linux-mm]
On Tue 22-12-15 21:04:35, Al Viro wrote:
[...]
> Documentation/which-allocator-should-I-use might be a good idea... Notes
> below are just a skeleton - a lot of details need to be added; in particular,
> there should be a part on "I have this kind of address and I want that;
> wh
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 09:21:14AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 3:22 AM, Al Viro wrote:
> >> And if the code really explicitly wants a page (or set of aligned pages)
> >> for some vm reason, I suspect having the cast there isn't a bad thing. It's
> >> clearly not just
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 3:22 AM, Al Viro wrote:
>> And if the code really explicitly wants a page (or set of aligned pages)
>> for some vm reason, I suspect having the cast there isn't a bad thing. It's
>> clearly not just a random pointer allocation if the bit pattern of the
>> pointer matters.
>
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 05:23:11PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> And if the code really explicitly wants a page (or set of aligned
> pages) for some vm reason, I suspect having the cast there isn't a bad
> thing. It's clearly not just a random pointer allocation if the bit
> pattern of the pointe
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 05:16:44PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Dec 21, 2015 17:04, "Al Viro" wrote:
> >
> > > And quite frankly, even the "new name" is likely a bad idea. If you
> > > want to allocate a page, and get a pointer, just use "kmalloc()".
> > > Boom, done!
> >
> > Erm... You've j
[ Grr. Resending because the stupid android gmail app still can't do
text emails ]
On Dec 21, 2015 17:04, "Al Viro" wrote:
>
> > And quite frankly, even the "new name" is likely a bad idea. If you
> > want to allocate a page, and get a pointer, just use "kmalloc()".
> > Boom, done!
>
> Erm... Yo
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 04:03:11PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> If you want to have versions of the function that return pointers, you
> had damn well better give them new names. Not use the same name for a
> different function, causing confusion and forcing this kind of crazy
> "change everythi
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> FWIW, I'd done a proof-of-concept patch series converting the things
> to
> * free_page() and free_pages() taking the address to free as a pointer
> * get_zeroed_page() returning a pointer
> * get_free_page()/get_fre
FWIW, I'd done a proof-of-concept patch series converting the things
to
* free_page() and free_pages() taking the address to free as a pointer
* get_zeroed_page() returning a pointer
* get_free_page()/get_free_pages() added, both returning a pointer
* __get_d
11 matches
Mail list logo
