Hi, On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 16:12 +0300, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote: > > Actually I think it is also somewhat of a bugfix (not to mention that it > > seems like a good idea to share testing code with other operating systems). > > It is not "kind of a bugfix". Caches were used to allocate all frequenly > created objects of fixed size. Removing native cache interface will > increase memory consumption and increase code size, and will make it harder > to spot actual memory leaks. Excuse me? Why do you think Nick's patch is going to _increase_ memory consumption? SLUB _already_ merges the ACPI caches with kmalloc caches so you won't see any difference there. For SLAB, it's a gain because there's not enough activity going on which results in lots of unused space in the slabs (which is, btw, the reason SLUB does slab merging in the first place). I'm also wondering why you think it's going to increase text size. Unless the ACPI code is doing something weird, the kmalloc() and kzalloc() shouldn't be a problem at all. For memory leaks, CONFIG_SLAB_LEAK has been in mainline for a long time plus there are the kmemleak patches floating around. So I fail to see how it's going to be harder to spot the memory leaks. After all, the rest of the kernel manages fine without a special wrapper, so how is ACPI any different here? Pekka -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
