[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E5FA81F.6060607@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 10:43:27 -0500
From: Seth Jennings <sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Seth Jennings <sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC: gregkh@...e.de, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
dan.magenheimer@...cle.com, ngupta@...are.org,
cascardo@...oscopio.com, rdunlap@...otime.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] staging: zcache: xcfmalloc memory allocator for zcache
On 08/31/2011 09:40 AM, Seth Jennings wrote:
> +static struct xcf_blkdesc *xcf_find_remove_block(struct xcf_pool *pool,
> + int size, int blocknum)
> +{
> + int flindex, i;
> + struct xcf_blkdesc *desc = NULL;
> +
> + flindex = xcf_size_to_flindex(size + sizeof(struct xcf_blkhdr));
> +
> + /* look for best fit */
> + if (pool->freelists[flindex])
> + goto remove;
> +
> + /* if this is the last block allowed in the allocation, we shouldn't
> + * consider smaller blocks. it's all or nothing now */
> + if (blocknum == XCF_MAX_BLOCKS_PER_ALLOC) {
In gathering my performance numbers for Dan, I discovered I introduced
a regression by making a late change in my development.
This line should be:
if (blocknum != XCF_MAX_BLOCKS_PER_ALLOC) {
This regression actually causes xcfmalloc to have the same fragmentation
issue as xvmalloc.
> + /* look for largest smaller block */
> + for (i = flindex; i > 0; i--) {
> + if (pool->freelists[i]) {
> + flindex = i;
> + goto remove;
> + }
> + }
> + }
--
Seth
--
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