[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <471D3C26.3020807@garzik.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:11:18 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
CC: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Linux Kernel Development <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
mingo@...e.hu, Linux/m68k <linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] Change table chaining layout
Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 11:52:51PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:47:07 -0500
>> Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 05:21:30PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>>> Alan Cox wrote:
>>>>> Why can't we just make the list one item longer than the entry count and
>>>>> stick a NULL on the end of it like normal people ?
>>>> Certainly seems safer than the current "let's run off the end of the
>>>> list if anything bad happens" setup... And I do not think allocating
>>>> n+1 scatterlist entries will have much of a negative impact.
>>> It'll mean m-1 scatterlists fit on a slab.
>> Is that really a credible space issue ?
>
> Yes. Especially if m is 2 or 1. A scatterlist on 64-bit x86 looks like
> it takes 32 bytes, which means 128 elements fit on a page. One more
> spills - ouch!
...and its trivial to reduce that number to 127 without noticeable
effect, really.
Jeff
-
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