[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141014051554.GA3692@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:15:55 +0900
From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
To: Dan Streetman <ddstreet@...e.org>
Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@....com>,
Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, juno.choi@....com,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Luigi Semenzato <semenzato@...gle.com>,
"seungho1.park" <seungho1.park@....com>,
Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] zsmalloc: merge size_class to reduce fragmentation
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 10:47:51AM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote:
> >> I think that using ref would makes intuitive code. Although there is
> >> some memory overhead, it is really small. So I prefer to this way.
> >>
> >> But, if you think that removing ref is better, I will do it.
> >> Please let me know your final decision.
> >
> > Yeb, please remove the ref. I want to keep size_class small for
> > cache footprint.
>
> i think a foreach_size_class() would be useful for zs_destroy_pool(),
> and in case any other size class iterations are added in the future,
> and it wouldn't require the extra ref field. You can use the fact
> that all merged size classes contain a class->index of the
> highest/largest size_class (because they all point to the same size
> class). So something like:
Hello,
Using class->index looks good idea, but, I'd like not to add new
macro here, because, it isn't needed in other place now.
Thanks.
--
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