From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758817AbZFBGsk (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jun 2009 02:48:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754674AbZFBGsc (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jun 2009 02:48:32 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f222.google.com ([209.85.218.222]:54770 "EHLO mail-bw0-f222.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753254AbZFBGsc (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jun 2009 02:48:32 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=ZchEJ+fkDddWzY7Nb1cZnfrFsLNoMktDdlYoYmGjGEGSrnuVqGyKU2we8jBuXMib0o HfGCV8HPshIBtkfGa/VoZXE/IxL+FjnjoO20pXjrYqfZwMWMjKHYNif2prIEjcQ8pm/+ 5dLt+oPhV2AIOSe4aINfstoKfvE4ghNjA7wh8= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20090601130825.GA1422@wotan.suse.de> References: <1243517365.11533.65.camel@penberg-laptop> <20090601130825.GA1422@wotan.suse.de> Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 09:48:32 +0300 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 137b4daf79e8a87f Message-ID: <84144f020906012348r749f7cfbk3cf7112e6263299b@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] init: call vfs_caches_init_early() later in the boot sequence From: Pekka Enberg To: Nick Piggin Cc: mingo@elte.hu, cl@linux-foundation.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mpm@selenic.com, yinghai@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Nick, [ I see I typo'd Linus' email address in the original patch submission... ] On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 04:29:25PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote: >> From: Pekka Enberg >> >> There's no need to call vfs_caches_init_early() before kmem_cache_init(). All >> we have to do is make sure we don't attempt to use the bootmem allocator after >> we've called mem_init(). On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Nick Piggin wrote: > Hmm, but you'd want to be able to allocate > MAX_ORDER areas in the linear > KVA, which the page allocator cannot do. So this is just going to silently > truncate hash table size. Nack on this one. OK, makes sense. IIRC, Linus suggested doing this but I think I'll just revert the patch. Pekka