[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YFhdWeedjQQgJdbi@google.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 18:03:21 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: 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,
senozhatsky@...omium.org, 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 (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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists