[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090714132538.ac0bc44a.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:25:38 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
Cc: Benjamin Blum <bblum@...gle.com>, Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
serue@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Quick vmalloc vs kmalloc fix to the case where
array size is too large
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:04:32 -0700
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 8:53 PM, KAMEZAWA
> Hiroyuki<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > Hmm, ok...then, if too much pids, you hit vmalloc()/vfree() problem again.
> > So, it's not good idea to use vmalloc/vfree here after all.
> >
>
> Agreed, using vmalloc()/vfree() isn't a perfect solution, but at least
> the approach of kmalloc() for small allocations and vmalloc() for
> larger allocations solves the current problem (reading tasks/procs
> files can fail due to lack of contiguous kmalloc memory) without
> introducing overhead in the typical case.
>
My point is
- More PIDs, More time necessary to read procs file.
This patch boost it ;) Seems like "visit this later again" ,or FIXME patch.
Thanks,
-Kame
> Paul
>
--
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