Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932146AbVLCTKn (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Dec 2005 14:10:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932131AbVLCTKn (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Dec 2005 14:10:43 -0500 Received: from dbl.q-ag.de ([213.172.117.3]:55269 "EHLO dbl.q-ag.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932146AbVLCTKn (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Dec 2005 14:10:43 -0500 Message-ID: <4391ED8D.1040104@colorfullife.com> Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 20:10:05 +0100 From: Manfred Spraul User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; fr-FR; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050923 Fedora/1.7.12-1.5.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Christoph Lameter CC: Alok Kataria , Petr Vandrovec , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Use compound pages for higher order slab allocations. References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 728 Lines: 23 Christoph Lameter wrote: >+static inline struct page *virt_to_compound_page(const void *addr) >+{ >+ struct page * page = virt_to_page(addr); >+ >+ if (PageCompound(page)) >+ page = (struct page *)page_private(page); >+ > > This would end up in every kmem_cache_free/kfree call. Is it really worth the effort, are the high order allocation a problem? I'm against such a change without a clear proof that just using high order allocations is not possible. -- Manfred - 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/