Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] add __GFP_ZERP to GFP_LEVEL_MASK | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:40:48 +0200 |
| |
On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 11:37 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:03:40 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote: > > > Daniel recently spotted that __GFP_ZERO is not (and has never been) > > part of GFP_LEVEL_MASK. I could not find a reason for this in the > > original patch: 3977971c7f09ce08ed1b8d7a67b2098eb732e4cd in the -bk > > tree. > > It doesn't make a lot of sense to be passing __GFP_ZERO into slab > allocation functions. It's not really for the caller to be telling slab > how it should arrange for its new memory to get zeroed. > > And the caller of slab functions will need to zero the memory anyway, > because you don't know whether your new object came direct from the page > allocator or if it is recycled memory from a partial slab. > > I have a feeling that we did support passing __GFP_ZERO into the slab > allocation functions for a while, but took it out.
Didn't we just reinstate doing that?
/me goes look at .23-rc1
# grep __GFP_ZERO mm/sl[uoa]b.c mm/slab.c: BUG_ON(flags & ~(GFP_DMA | __GFP_ZERO | GFP_LEVEL_MASK)); mm/slab.c: if (unlikely((flags & __GFP_ZERO) && ptr)) mm/slab.c: if (unlikely((flags & __GFP_ZERO) && objp)) mm/slob.c: if (unlikely((gfp & __GFP_ZERO) && b)) mm/slub.c: BUG_ON(flags & ~(GFP_DMA | __GFP_ZERO | GFP_LEVEL_MASK)); mm/slub.c: if (unlikely((gfpflags & __GFP_ZERO) && object))
seems to suggest we do.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |