From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
lkp@01.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>
Subject: Re: [lkp-robot] [x86/kconfig] 81d3871900: BUG:unable_to_handle_kernel
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 11:48:43 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171012114843.d74096014cb88eedbaa7ac70@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAADWXX-M2uftDuCyAS+UMKACC6d-B+Zb-DDNGO76yRS5wuigHw@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 10:54:57 -0700 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Oct 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >
> >> I failed to add the slab maintainers to CC on the last attempt. Trying
> >> again.
> >
> > Hmmm... Yea. SLOB is rarely used and tested. Good illustration of a simple
> > allocator and the K&R mechanism that was used in the early kernels.
>
> Should we finally just get rid of SLOB?
>
> I'm not happy about the whole "three different allocators" crap. It's
> been there for much too long, and I've tried to cut it down before.
> People always protest, but three different allocators, one of which
> gets basically no testing, is not good.
>
I am not aware of anyone using slob. We could disable it in Kconfig
for a year, see what the feedback looks like.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
lkp@01.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>
Subject: Re: [lkp-robot] [x86/kconfig] 81d3871900: BUG:unable_to_handle_kernel
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 11:48:43 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171012114843.d74096014cb88eedbaa7ac70@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAADWXX-M2uftDuCyAS+UMKACC6d-B+Zb-DDNGO76yRS5wuigHw@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 10:54:57 -0700 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Oct 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >
> >> I failed to add the slab maintainers to CC on the last attempt. Trying
> >> again.
> >
> > Hmmm... Yea. SLOB is rarely used and tested. Good illustration of a simple
> > allocator and the K&R mechanism that was used in the early kernels.
>
> Should we finally just get rid of SLOB?
>
> I'm not happy about the whole "three different allocators" crap. It's
> been there for much too long, and I've tried to cut it down before.
> People always protest, but three different allocators, one of which
> gets basically no testing, is not good.
>
I am not aware of anyone using slob. We could disable it in Kconfig
for a year, see what the feedback looks like.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [lkp-robot] [x86/kconfig] 81d3871900: BUG:unable_to_handle_kernel
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 11:48:43 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171012114843.d74096014cb88eedbaa7ac70@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAADWXX-M2uftDuCyAS+UMKACC6d-B+Zb-DDNGO76yRS5wuigHw@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 905 bytes --]
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 10:54:57 -0700 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Oct 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >
> >> I failed to add the slab maintainers to CC on the last attempt. Trying
> >> again.
> >
> > Hmmm... Yea. SLOB is rarely used and tested. Good illustration of a simple
> > allocator and the K&R mechanism that was used in the early kernels.
>
> Should we finally just get rid of SLOB?
>
> I'm not happy about the whole "three different allocators" crap. It's
> been there for much too long, and I've tried to cut it down before.
> People always protest, but three different allocators, one of which
> gets basically no testing, is not good.
>
I am not aware of anyone using slob. We could disable it in Kconfig
for a year, see what the feedback looks like.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-10-12 18:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 65+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-10-10 12:15 [lkp-robot] [x86/kconfig] 81d3871900: BUG:unable_to_handle_kernel kernel test robot
2017-10-10 12:15 ` kernel test robot
2017-10-11 2:31 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-11 2:31 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-11 2:31 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-11 17:01 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-11 17:01 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-11 17:01 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-12 17:05 ` Christopher Lameter
2017-10-12 17:05 ` Christopher Lameter
2017-10-12 17:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-12 17:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-12 17:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-12 18:48 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2017-10-12 18:48 ` Andrew Morton
2017-10-12 18:48 ` Andrew Morton
2017-10-12 19:19 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-10-12 19:19 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-10-12 19:19 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-10-12 17:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-12 17:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-12 17:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-13 4:45 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-13 4:45 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-13 4:45 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-13 13:56 ` Andrey Ryabinin
2017-10-13 13:56 ` Andrey Ryabinin
2017-10-13 13:56 ` Andrey Ryabinin
2017-10-13 16:19 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-13 16:19 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-13 16:19 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-13 19:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-13 19:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-13 19:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-13 19:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-13 20:01 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-10-13 20:01 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-10-13 20:01 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-10-13 20:01 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-10-13 20:17 ` Jeffrey Walton
2017-10-13 20:17 ` Jeffrey Walton
2017-10-13 20:17 ` Jeffrey Walton
2017-10-13 15:22 ` Christopher Lameter
2017-10-13 15:22 ` Christopher Lameter
2017-10-13 15:37 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-13 15:37 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-13 15:37 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-17 7:33 ` Joonsoo Kim
2017-10-17 7:33 ` Joonsoo Kim
2017-10-17 7:33 ` Joonsoo Kim
2017-10-17 7:50 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-10-17 7:50 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-10-17 7:50 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-10-18 7:31 ` Joonsoo Kim
2017-10-18 7:31 ` Joonsoo Kim
2017-10-18 7:31 ` Joonsoo Kim
2017-10-18 10:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-18 10:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-18 10:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-18 13:15 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-10-18 13:15 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-10-18 13:15 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-10-19 2:14 ` Joonsoo Kim
2017-10-19 2:14 ` Joonsoo Kim
2017-10-19 2:14 ` Joonsoo Kim
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20171012114843.d74096014cb88eedbaa7ac70@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=brgerst@gmail.com \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=dvlasenk@redhat.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=jslaby@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lkp@01.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mpm@selenic.com \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=xiaolong.ye@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.