[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <506480FB.40802@parallels.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 20:38:19 +0400
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
CC: <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] sl[au]b: process slabinfo_show in common code
On 09/27/2012 07:07 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
>
>> --- a/mm/slab_common.c
>> +++ b/mm/slab_common.c
>> @@ -239,7 +239,23 @@ static void s_stop(struct seq_file *m, void *p)
>>
>> static int s_show(struct seq_file *m, void *p)
>> {
>> - return slabinfo_show(m, p);
>> + struct kmem_cache *s = list_entry(p, struct kmem_cache, list);
>> + struct slabinfo sinfo;
>> +
>> + memset(&sinfo, 0, sizeof(sinfo));
>> + get_slabinfo(s, &sinfo);
>
> Could get_slabinfo() also set the objects per slab etc in some additional
> field in struct slabinfo? Then we can avoid the exporting of the oo_
> functions and we do not need the cache_order() etc functions.
>
Yes. As a matter of fact, I first implemented it this way, and later
switched. I was anticipating that people would be likely to point out
that those properties are directly derivable from the caches, and it
would be better to just get them from there.
I am more than happy to stick them in the slabinfo struct.
--
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