Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 27 Dec 2000 17:14:12 +0100 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: cdrom changes in test13-pre2 slow down cdrom access by 70% |
| |
On Wed, Dec 27 2000, David Mansfield wrote: > > In principle it looks ok, but after some time we are bound to fail 8 > > frame allocations anyway and this patch won't help. For the modular > > case, preallocation of a bigger chunk at init time is no good either. > > Builtin would be fine of course. This almost screams sg to me :-) > > > > Nonetheless, with your first patch and my patch, the system starts off > using the old method of trying to allocate 8 frames buffer (which is > essential for performance) and falls back to the current (as of > test13-pre2) way in low/fragmented memory situations. To me, that's > better than either the previous or the current method, with the slight > increased cost of the failed kmalloc every time in the low/fragmented > memory case. [...]
Yes I agree, it's better than what is there. All I was saying is that it could be better :-). I've already put something close to your patch in my tree, will be sent off the next time
> BTW, have you gotten reports of that kmalloc failing for people?
Of course, otherwise I wouldn't have changed it.
> I've been ripping audio with every kernel since pre4 and have > never had a failure. Granted, I put 'workstation' loads on my machine, > but I run some benchmarks from time-to-time, put memory pressure on > etc. (H*ll, just netscape alone is memory pressure enough :-).
Depends on how much RAM you have, and what you are doing.
-- * Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de> * SuSE Labs - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |