From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933350AbYDQKTw (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Apr 2008 06:19:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932211AbYDQKTf (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Apr 2008 06:19:35 -0400 Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.198.249]:14265 "EHLO rv-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1765658AbYDQKTd (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Apr 2008 06:19:33 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=Tg///tySOCw6+JTp0KxP9gYfNxiheo3jSWIx67YhzS5XNYf5gGhYdFhhSQlHEv6DTNxwcSjpWC/d8lQoBVq1wCdbFUPCJbzHMo/Mp5Ld/xMqUFKf+BScSXbSbKkzWcXm3eF9J99swGz0YRbLS7+dl5T01Fiuels8TL0xnB6dckM= Message-ID: <84144f020804170319g6e0b90ffq1c42179e084d18f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:19:32 +0300 From: "Pekka Enberg" To: "Andrew Morton" Subject: Re: [v2.6.26] what's brewing in x86.git for v2.6.26 Cc: "Ingo Molnar" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Linus Torvalds" , "Thomas Gleixner" , "H. Peter Anvin" , "Vegard Nossum" In-Reply-To: <20080417023603.672d1032.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080416202338.GA6007@elte.hu> <20080417002552.5742ad65.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080417083000.GA4935@elte.hu> <20080417014054.ea788f1f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080417090626.GA14383@elte.hu> <20080417021813.04df7912.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080417093025.GA17389@elte.hu> <20080417023603.672d1032.akpm@linux-foundation.org> X-Google-Sender-Auth: ffc7969df5d50fd0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Andrew Morton 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.