[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] slab: introduce krealloc
    Hi Christoph,

    Christoph Lameter wrote:
    > 1. Just do not allow shrinking via realloc. Probably no big loss and best
    > performance.

    Not a big loss if you can afford the wasted memory. But, I don't think
    we should do this, there's no way for the caller to know that we will
    hold on to the memory indefinitely.

    Christoph Lameter wrote:
    > 2. Check if the size specified is larger than the next smallest general
    > cache and only copy if we would really would allocate from a different
    > cache.

    Yeah, I was thinking about this too but decided against it (for now) as
    I am mostly concerned with removing the slab abuses from unionfs. Also,
    it is not immediately obvious we want to do this for all cases of
    krealloc so I'd prefer to keep the API for a while and decide to
    optimize or not optimize later. Note that we would only get rid of one
    of the kfree callers, the other one doesn't want to do krealloc(), it
    never reuses the old values.


    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: 2007-02-21 19:41    [W:0.019 / U:5.976 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site