On Fri, 4 Sep 2015, Dave Chinner wrote: > There are generic cases where it hurts, so no justification should > be needed for those cases... Inodes and dentries have constructors. These slabs are not mergeable and will never be because they have cache specific code to be executed on the object. > Really, we don't need some stupidly high bar to jump over here - > whether merging should be allowed can easily be answered with a > simple question: "Does the slab have a shrinker or does it back a > mempool?" If the answer is yes then using SLAB_SHRINKER or > SLAB_MEMPOOL to trigger the no-merge case doesn't need any more > justification from subsystem maintainers at all. The slab shrinkers do not use mergeable slab caches. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
