[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070420111727.fc69d671.dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:17:27 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: "Aubrey Li" <aubreylee@...il.com>,
"Robin Getz" <rgetz@...ckfin.uclinux.org>, uaca@...mni.uv.es,
bryan.wu@...log.com, "Alan Cox" <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
waltje@...lt.nl.mugnet.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...l.org>,
"Linux Kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] CONFIG_PACKET_MMAP should depend on MMU
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:58:52 +0100
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Because kmalloc() may be able to get us a smaller chunk of memory. Actually,
> calling __get_free_pages() might be a better, and then release the excess
> pages.
Interesting, that rings a bell here.
I wonder why we dont use this in alloc_large_system_hash().
(if __get_free_pages(GFP_ATOMIC, order) is used instead of alloc_bootmem() or __vmalloc())
We currently loose 1/4 of space on tcp hash table for example, because sizeof(inet_ehash_bucket) is not a power of 2.
Is it really possible to allocate an order-10 page, then release part of it (say an order-8 subpage) ?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists