Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 25 May 2005 09:41:35 -0500 | From | Eric Van Hensbergen <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |