Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 8 Jun 2007 13:40:33 -0700 | From | "Siddha, Suresh B" <> | Subject | Re: [Intel-IOMMU 02/10] Library routine for pre-allocat pool handling |
| |
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 01:12:00PM -0700, Keshavamurthy, Anil S wrote: > The resource pool indeed provide extra robustness, the initial pool size will > be equal to min_count + grow_count. If the pool object count goes below > min_count, then pool grows in the background while serving as emergency > pool with min_count of objects in it. If we run out of emergency pool objects > before the pool grow in the background, then we go to OS for allocation. > > Similary, if the pool objects grows above the max threshold, > the objects are freed to OS in the background thread maintaining > the pool objects close to min_count + grow_count size.
slab already has this and it has additional functionalities like reaping over time, when there is no activity...
> 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.
Not sure how is this fast compared to slab. Atleast slab is lockless in the fast case..
> We had this kmem_cache_alloc() with mempool concept earlier and Andi suggest to > come up with something pre-allocated pool. > Andi, Can you chime in please.
In the initial patches, only for iova we were using slabs + mempool. But for others like pgtable_mempool, we were using simple mempools.
Even slabs + mempool is not same as just usng slab.. slab is lockless for the fast case.
thanks, suresh - 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/
| |