[lkml]   [2007]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Fw: Buffer overflow in CIFS VFS.
    On Nov 10, 2007 7:03 AM, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn <> wrote:
    > Steve French wrote:
    > > That might be better, although without memory pools, this would perform
    > > much worse
    > >
    > Why ? I don't get your point here.
    > Przemyslaw

    What I meant is that two fixed size memory pools rather variable size
    kmallocs helps performance. By using two fixed size buffers (small -
    which fits the typical smb request and response, and large which fits
    the maximum size request other than write which is handled via an
    iovec) and taking advantage of memory pools, cifs can always make
    progress even in low memory situations (reducing the likelihood of
    deadlock) and it reduces the number of times that cifs has to do the
    very expensive allocation of 16.5K. If cifs only used variable size
    request and response buffers, since they are frequently more than one
    page in size we would be forcing the memory manager to find contiguous
    pages which can be very slow.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-11-10 20:57    [W:0.020 / U:4.768 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site