[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <463B812D.5090009@cs.helsinki.fi>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 21:53:33 +0300
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...elEye.com>,
Mike Christie <michaelc@...wisc.edu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Phillips <phillips@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/40] mm: kmem_cache_objsize
Christoph Lameter wrote:
> SLAB can calculate exactly how many pages are needed. The per
> cpu and per node stuff is setup at boot and does not change. We are
> talking about the worst case scenario here. True in case of an off slab
> we have additional overhead that would also have to go into worst case
> scenario.
Fair enough. But there's no way it can take into account any slab
management structures it needs to allocate. The slab simply doesn't know
how many pages are needed to _allocate n amount of objects_.
Peter is interested in a _rough estimate_ so I don't see the point of
adding that kind of logic in the slab. It's an API that simply cannot
satisfy all its callers which is why I suggested exposing buffer size in
the first place (the slab certainly knows how many bytes it needs for
one object).
Pekka
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists