lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [May]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] SLAB changes for v3.10
On Wed, 8 May 2013, Chris Mason wrote:

> > You correctly moved the checks out of the if (!kmalloc_cacheS())
> > condition so that the caches are created properly.
>
> But if the ordering is required at all, why is it ok to create cache 2
> after cache 6 instead of after cache 7?

The power of two caches are 2^x beginning with KMALLOC_MIN_SHIFT. The non
power of two caches were folded into number 1 + 2 since they do not fit
into the scheme and they are special cased throughout. This works since
the minimal slab cache size is 8 bytes.

> IOW if we can safely do cache 2 after cache 6, why can't we just do both
> cache 1 and cache 2 after the loop?

Because the cache creation in SLAB can cause the use of a fractional slab
size if kmem_cache_create() thinks its better to put the metadata on a
different slab cache (OFF_SLAB type) because data will align better that
way. Its weird I know but its due to the way that SLAB aligns data in the
page frame.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-05-08 21:21    [W:1.981 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site