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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Mon, 2 Jan 2006, Pekka Enberg wrote:

> Hi,
> On 12/30/05, Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> 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:

# define __EIP__ , __builtin_return_address(0)
# define __DECLARE_EIP__ , void *eip
# define __EIP__
# define __DECLARE_EIP__

#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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

[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]
  Powered by Linux