Alok Kataria <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 14:18, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On 2/23/06, Alok Kataria <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > There can be some caches which are not used quite often, kmem_cache
> > > for instance. Now from performance perspective having SLAB_NO_REAP for
> > > such caches is good.
> >
> > Yeah, kmem_cache sounds like a realistic user, but I am wondering if
> > it makes any sense for anyone else to use it?
> >
> Right, thats why my question still is why do these iscsi & ocfs cache
> have this flag set.
I'm sure there's no good reason.
> If we are sure that the flag is still required, we can use the patch
> below.
I'm very much hoping that it is not needed. Would prefer to just toss the
whole thing away.
What's it supposed to do anyway? Keep wholly-unused pages hanging about in
each slab cache? If so, it may well be a net loss - it'd be better to push
those pages back into the page allocator so they can get reused for
something else while they're possibly still in-cache. Similarly, it's
better to fall back to the page allocator for a new slab page because
that's more likely to give us a cache-hot one.
I'm convinced, anyway ;)
-
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]
