From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [OpenAFS-devel] Re: [PATCH] PAG support only Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 06:33:46 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20030514063345.A517@infradead.org> References: <8943.1052843591@warthog.warthog> <20030513213759.A9244@infradead.org> <1052864839.20037.2.camel@nneul-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Howells , torvalds@transmeta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: Nathan Neulinger Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1052864839.20037.2.camel@nneul-laptop>; from nneul@umr.edu on Tue, May 13, 2003 at 05:27:20PM -0500 List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org [openafs-devel dropped from the Cc-list due to stupid subscriber only policy] On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 05:27:20PM -0500, Nathan Neulinger wrote: > > > +static kmem_cache_t *vfs_token_cache; > > > +static kmem_cache_t *vfs_pag_cache; > > > > How many of those will be around for a typical AFS client? I have the vague > > feeling the slabs are overkill.. > > What's a "typical client"? The case we wan to optimize for. The question here is whether we really want a separate slab or whether it makes more senze to just use the new kmalloc slab (usually power of two sized).