[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210322135718.GA28451@lst.de>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 14:57:18 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-cifsd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, smfrench@...il.com,
hyc.lee@...il.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hch@....de,
hch@...radead.org, ronniesahlberg@...il.com,
aurelien.aptel@...il.com, aaptel@...e.com, sandeen@...deen.net,
dan.carpenter@...cle.com, colin.king@...onical.com,
rdunlap@...radead.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Steve French <stfrench@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] cifsd: add file operations
On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 06:03:21PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (21/03/22 08:15), Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >
> > What's the scenario for which your allocator performs better than slub
> >
>
> IIRC request and reply buffers can be up to 4M in size. So this stuff
> just allocates a number of fat buffers and keeps them around so that
> it doesn't have to vmalloc(4M) for every request and every response.
Do we have any data suggesting it is faster than vmalloc?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists