[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706081532410.3966@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 15:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: "Keshavamurthy, Anil S" <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ak@...e.de, gregkh@...e.de,
muli@...ibm.com, asit.k.mallick@...el.com,
suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
ashok.raj@...el.com, shaohua.li@...el.com, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [Intel-IOMMU 02/10] Library routine for pre-allocat pool handling
On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, Keshavamurthy, Anil S wrote:
> > You _seem_ to be saying that the resource pools are there purely for
> > alloc/free performance reasons. If so, I'd be skeptical: slab is pretty
> > darned fast.
> We need several objects of size say( 4 * sizeof(u64)) and reuse
> them in dma map/unmap api calls for managing io virtual allocation address that
> this driver has dished out. Hence having pool of objects where we put
> the element in the linked list and and get it from the linked list is pretty
> fast compared to slab.
SLUB also manages objects using a linked list. Is there a real performance
difference?
-
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