Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 2 Jan 2006 10:51:03 +0200 | From | Pekka Enberg <> | Subject | Re: [POLL] SLAB : Are the 32 and 192 bytes caches really usefull on x86_64 machines ? |
| |
On 12/30/05, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote: > > Attached is a variant that was refreshed against 2.6.15-rc7 and fixes > > the logical bug that your compile error fix made ;) > > > > It should be cachep->objsize not csizep->cs_size.
On 1/2/06, Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote: > Isn't there any other way to do this patch other than making kzalloc() > and kstrdup() inline? I would like to see something like this in the > mainline but making them inline is not acceptable because they > increase kernel text a lot.
Also, wouldn't it be better to track kmem_cache_alloc and kmem_cache_alloc_node instead?
Pekka - 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/
| |