Re: [POLL] SLAB : Are the 32 and 192 bytes caches really usefull on x86_64 machines ?

[Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>]

On Mon, 2 Jan 2006, Pekka Enberg wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 12/30/05, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> > Attached is a variant that was refreshed against 2.6.15-rc7 and fixes
> > the logical bug that your compile error fix made ;)
> >
> > It should be cachep->objsize not csizep->cs_size.
>
> Isn't there any other way to do this patch other than making kzalloc()
> and kstrdup() inline? I would like to see something like this in the
> mainline but making them inline is not acceptable because they
> increase kernel text a lot.

Actually, yes. I was adding to this patch something to be more specific,
and to either pass the EIP through the parameter or a __FILE__, __LINE__.

Using the following:

#ifdef CONFIG_KMALLOC_ACCOUNTING
# define __EIP__ , __builtin_return_address(0)
# define __DECLARE_EIP__ , void *eip
#else
# define __EIP__
# define __DECLARE_EIP__
#endif

#define kstrdup(s,g) __kstrdup(s, g __EIP__)
extern char *__kstrdup(const char *s, gfp_t g __DECLARE_EIP__);


Or a file line can be used:

# define __EIP__ , __FILE__, __LINE__
# define __DECLARE_EIP__ , char *file, int line



-- Steve


-
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/