On 5/25/05, Pekka J Enberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Is this not the right way to use slabs? Should I just be using
> > kmalloc/kcalloc? (Is that what you mean by drop the custom allocator?)
>
> You can create your own slab for known fixed-size objects (your
> directory structure). Look at other filesystems for an example. They
> usually create a cache for their inode_info structs.
>
> The problem with your approach on packet structure slab is that we
> potentially get slabs with little or no activity. You would have to
> write custom code to tear down unused slabs but now you've got something
> that clearly does not belong in filesystem code. So yes, I think you'd
> be better of using kmalloc()/kcalloc() for your packet structures.
>
Okay, I figured that since packet buffer sizes were "mostly" fixed by
session configuration then slabs would be the way to go. But I see
your point - I'll go ahead and convert all the packet buffers to
kmalloc during the upcoming three-day weekend and try to push out a
new release candidate early next week.
-eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
