[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 12:00:54 +0300 (EEST)
From: Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...elEye.com>,
Mike Christie <michaelc@...wisc.edu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Phillips <phillips@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/40] mm: kmem_cache_objsize
On Fri, 4 May 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> He is not able to calculate it just using the object size since he does
> not know where the slab put the slab management structure. And in case of
> SLUB there is no slab management structure... Which means he would have to
> special case based on the slab allocator selected.
Let me state this once more: he is interested in _rough approximation_. It
makes no sense to me to add this kind of fuzzy logic in the slab. Now, as
the slab clearly cannot give a _precise number_ either, it shouldn't be
added there.
But, if both of you really want to stick it in mm/slab.c, I guess I won't
be too violently opposed to it. It just doesn't make any sense to me.
Pekka
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists