[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200902051414.39985.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 14:14:38 +1100
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] SLQB slab allocator
On Thursday 05 February 2009 07:10:31 Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > Well, the slab_hiwater() check in __slab_free() of mm/slqb.c will cap
> > the size of the queue. But we do the same thing in SLAB with
> > alien->limit in cache_free_alien() and ac->limit in __cache_free(). So
> > I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the queues will "grow
> > unconstrained" (in either of the allocators). Hmm?
>
> Nick said he wanted to defer queue processing. If the water marks are
> checked and queue processing run then of course queue processing is not
> deferred and the queue does not build up further.
I don't think I ever said anything as ambiguous as "queue processing".
This subthread was started by your concern of periodic queue trimming,
and I was definitely talking about the possibility to defer *that*.
--
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