Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch 0/9] Critical Mempools | From | Pekka Enberg <> | Date | Sat, 28 Jan 2006 12:21:51 +0200 |
| |
Hi,
On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 16:41 -0800, Matthew Dobson wrote: > Now, a few pages of memory could be incredibly crucial, since > we're discussing an emergency (presumably) low-mem situation, but if > we're going to be getting several requests for the same > slab/kmalloc-size then we're probably better of giving a whole page to > the slab allocator. This is pure speculation, of course... :)
Yeah but even then there's no guarantee that the critical allocations will be serviced first. The slab allocator can as well be giving away bits of the fresh page to non-critical allocations. For the exact same reason, I don't think it's enough that you pass a subsystem-specific page pool to the slab allocator.
Sorry if this has been explained before but why aren't mempools sufficient for your purposes? Also one more alternative would be to create a separate object cache for each subsystem-specific critical allocation and implement a internal "page pool" for the slab allocator so that you could specify for the number of pages an object cache guarantees to always hold on to.
Pekka
- 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/
| |