[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110906235129.GA26281@kroah.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 16:51:29 -0700
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.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 Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 10:43:27AM -0500, Seth Jennings wrote:
> 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.
Ok, care to resend a tested and correct patch series then?
greg k-h
--
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