Message-ID: <419249D8.1030100@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 18:03:20 +0100
From: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.kernel.2004@gmx.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; de-AT; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040114
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
CC: Robert Love <rml@novell.com>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] kmem_alloc (generic wrapper for kmalloc and vmalloc)
References: <4191A4E2.7040502@gmx.net> <1100066597.18601.124.camel@localhost> <20041110075450.GB5602@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <20041110075450.GB5602@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1265
Lines: 32

Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 10 2004, Robert Love wrote:
> 
>>On Wed, 2004-11-10 at 06:19 +0100, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
>>
>>>it seems there is a bunch of drivers which want to allocate memory as
>>>efficiently as possible in a wide range of allocation sizes. XFS and
>>>NTFS seem to be examples. Implement a generic wrapper to reduce code
>>>duplication.
>>>Functions have the my_ prefixes to avoid name clash with XFS.
>>
>>No, no, no.  A good patch would be fixing places where you see this.
>>
>>Code needs to conscientiously decide to use vmalloc over kmalloc.  The
>>behavior is different and the choice needs to be explicit.
> 
> Plus, you cannot use vfree() from interrupt context. This patch is a bad
> idea.

OK, so how should I allocate memory for 512 struct loop_device's?
Because of its odd size (304 bytes) it seems that if I use kmalloc
seperately for each struct, I'd waste 208 bytes per allocation. 68%
overhead would be a step backwards. Or am I missing something here?


Regards,
Carl-Daniel
-
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/