[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1203210959500.21932@router.home>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:03:07 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: Patch workqueue: create new slab cache instead of hacking
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Creating a dedicated cache for few objects ? Thats a lot of overhead, at
> least for SLAB (no merges of caches)
Its some overhead for SLAB (a lot is what? If you tune down the per cpu
caches it should be a couple of pages) but its none for SLUB. Maybe we
need to add the merge logic to SLAB?
Or maybe we can extract a common higher handling level for kmem_cache
from all slab allocators and make merging standard.
--
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