On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 11:52:51PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:47:07 -0500
> Matt Mackall <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 05:21:30PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > > Alan Cox wrote:
> > > >Why can't we just make the list one item longer than the entry count and
> > > >stick a NULL on the end of it like normal people ?
> > >
> > > Certainly seems safer than the current "let's run off the end of the
> > > list if anything bad happens" setup... And I do not think allocating
> > > n+1 scatterlist entries will have much of a negative impact.
> >
> > It'll mean m-1 scatterlists fit on a slab.
>
> Is that really a credible space issue ?
Yes. Especially if m is 2 or 1. A scatterlist on 64-bit x86 looks like
it takes 32 bytes, which means 128 elements fit on a page. One more
spills - ouch!
But maybe chaining means this doesn't matter any more. Maybe we can
even pick a nice moderate sg size and reduce the number of mempools we
need for these things.
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
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]
