Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:56:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:56:56 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com ([204.127.202.61]:27135 "EHLO sccrmhc01.attbi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:56:56 -0500 Message-ID: <3E7E2219.5090501@quark.didntduck.org> Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:07:37 -0500 From: Brian Gerst User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2) Gecko/20021203 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Manfred Spraul CC: Anton Blanchard , Brian Gerst , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] slab.c cleanup References: <3E7E204C.2040700@colorfullife.com> In-Reply-To: <3E7E204C.2040700@colorfullife.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 938 Lines: 28 Manfred Spraul wrote: > Anton wrote: > >>> - Don't create caches that are not multiples of L1_CACHE_BYTES. >> >> >> Nice idea, I often see the list walk (of the cache sizes) in kmalloc >> in kernel >> profiles. eg a bunch of kmalloc(2k) for network drivers. >> >> Since we have a 128byte cacheline on ppc64 this patch should reduce that. >> >> > No, the patch is a bad thing: It means that everyone who does > kmalloc(32,) now allocates 128 bytes, i.e. 3/4 wasted. IMHO not acceptable. Perhaps, but it currently is already allocating 128 bytes for smaller caches, because the cache is created with SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN. So we ended up with redundantly sized caches. -- Brian Gerst - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/