Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1032501AbXFHWx0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jun 2007 18:53:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752936AbXFHWxT (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jun 2007 18:53:19 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:37535 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751311AbXFHWxT (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jun 2007 18:53:19 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.16,401,1175497200"; d="scan'208";a="252462542" Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 15:49:31 -0700 From: "Keshavamurthy, Anil S" To: Christoph Lameter Cc: "Keshavamurthy, Anil S" , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ak@suse.de, gregkh@suse.de, muli@il.ibm.com, asit.k.mallick@intel.com, suresh.b.siddha@intel.com, arjan@linux.intel.com, ashok.raj@intel.com, shaohua.li@intel.com, davem@davemloft.net Subject: Re: [Intel-IOMMU 02/10] Library routine for pre-allocat pool handling Message-ID: <20070608224931.GA10312@linux-os.sc.intel.com> Reply-To: "Keshavamurthy, Anil S" References: <20070606185658.138237000@askeshav-devel.jf.intel.com> <20070606190042.510643000@askeshav-devel.jf.intel.com> <20070607162726.2236a296.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070608182156.GA24865@linux-os.sc.intel.com> <20070608120107.245eba96.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070608201200.GA641@linux-os.sc.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1042 Lines: 23 On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 03:33:39PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, Keshavamurthy, Anil S wrote: > > > > You _seem_ to be saying that the resource pools are there purely for > > > alloc/free performance reasons. If so, I'd be skeptical: slab is pretty > > > darned fast. > > We need several objects of size say( 4 * sizeof(u64)) and reuse > > them in dma map/unmap api calls for managing io virtual allocation address that > > this driver has dished out. Hence having pool of objects where we put > > the element in the linked list and and get it from the linked list is pretty > > fast compared to slab. > > SLUB also manages objects using a linked list. Is there a real performance > difference? Sorry, I have not tried using SLUB, I will surely check this out. -Anil - 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/