On Thu 27-04-17 17:06:05, Igor Stoppa wrote: > > > On 27/04/17 16:41, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 26-04-17 18:29:08, Igor Stoppa wrote: > > [...] > >> If you prefer to have this patch only as part of the larger patchset, > >> I'm also fine with it. > > > > I agree that the situation is not ideal. If a larger set of changes > > would benefit from this change then it would clearly add arguments... > > Ok, then I'll send it out as part of the larger RFC set. > > > >> Also, if you could reply to [1], that would be greatly appreciated. > > > > I will try to get to it but from a quick glance, yet-another-zone will > > hit a lot of opposition... > > The most basic questions, that I hope can be answered with Yes/No =) are: > > - should a new zone be added after DMA32? > > - should I try hard to keep the mask fitting a 32bit word - at least for > hose who do not use the new zone - or is it ok to just stretch it to 64 > bits? Do not add a new zone, really. What you seem to be looking for is an allocator on top of the page/memblock allocator which does write protection on top. I understand that you would like to avoid object management duplication but I am not really sure how much you can re-use what slab allocators do already, anyway. I will respond to the original thread to not mix things together. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
