Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 17 Apr 2008 03:33:33 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [v2.6.26] what's brewing in x86.git for v2.6.26 |
| |
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:19:32 +0300 "Pekka Enberg" <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Andrew Morton > <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > you mean kmemcheck? Yes, that's planned. We've been working 4 months > > > non-stop on kmemcheck to make it mergeable and usable, it's at version 7 > > > right now, and it caught a handful of real bugs already (such as > > > 63a7138671c - unfortunately not credited in the log to kmemcheck). But > > > because it touches SLUB (because it has to - and they are acked by > > > Pekka) i never had the chance to move it into the for-akpm branch. > > > > Does it really really really need to consume one of our few remaining page > > flags? We'll be in a mess when we run out. > > FYI, the initial version of kmemcheck didn't have a separate page flag > (it abused SLUB internals) but it got really hairy and I think I > finally convinced Vegard to switch over to page flags after some > hair-pulling when we hit a bug. So yes, from SLUB maintainer point of > view, we _really, really_ want to use a page flag here.
Thank you whoever wrote kmemcheck.txt
How come slub uses one byte to track the status of each byte when it could use a single bit?
We (still!) have not made the decision whether to proceed with slab or slub. How hard would it be to port kmemcheck into slab?
| |