From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from panicking.kicks-ass.org (unknown [77.224.194.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A65E0DE9B3 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 02:17:35 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <49EF4201.9030606@evidence.eu.com> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:12:49 +0200 From: michael MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stefan Roscher Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] IB/ehca: Replace vmalloc with kmalloc References: <200904211716.45245.ossrosch@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <200904221602.29028.ossrosch@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <49EF254A.6020106@evidence.eu.com> <200904221800.41399.ossrosch@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <200904221800.41399.ossrosch@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: Roland Dreier , fenkes@de.ibm.com, LKML , OF-EWG , LinuxPPC-Dev , raisch@de.ibm.com, alexschm@de.ibm.com, stefan.roscher@de.ibm.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, Stefan Roscher wrote: > On Wednesday 22 April 2009 04:10:18 pm michael wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> > > >> I don't take the point, if it is not import use the vmalloc. Why you try >> with a kmalloc >> alloc first? and why do not use kzalloc? >> > > Because kmalloc() is faster than vmalloc() causing a huge performance win > when someone allocates a large number of queue pairs. We fall back to > vmalloc() only if kmalloc() can't deliver the memory chunk. > Sorry I catch later the performace issue. > We don't need kzalloc because we fill the list right after the alloc. > > regards Stefan > Regards Michael > _______________________________________________ > Linuxppc-dev mailing list > Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org > https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev > >