lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [May]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: v9fs: VFS superblock operations (2.0-rc6)
On 5/25/05, Pekka J Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> >
> > Is this not the right way to use slabs? Should I just be using
> > kmalloc/kcalloc? (Is that what you mean by drop the custom allocator?)
>
> You can create your own slab for known fixed-size objects (your
> directory structure). Look at other filesystems for an example. They
> usually create a cache for their inode_info structs.
>
> The problem with your approach on packet structure slab is that we
> potentially get slabs with little or no activity. You would have to
> write custom code to tear down unused slabs but now you've got something
> that clearly does not belong in filesystem code. So yes, I think you'd
> be better of using kmalloc()/kcalloc() for your packet structures.
>

Okay, I figured that since packet buffer sizes were "mostly" fixed by
session configuration then slabs would be the way to go. But I see
your point - I'll go ahead and convert all the packet buffers to
kmalloc during the upcoming three-day weekend and try to push out a
new release candidate early next week.

-eric
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-05-25 16:45    [W:0.035 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site