Re: [PATCH] Export symbol ksize()

[Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>]

On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 09:21 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 05:00:52PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > But kmem_cache_size() would tell you how much extra secret memory there
> > is available after the object?
> > 
> > How that gets along with redzoning is a bit of a mystery though.
> > 
> > The whole concept is quite hacky and nasty, isn't it?.  Does
> > networking/crypto actually show any gain from pulling this stunt?
> 
> I see no point in calling ksize on memory that's not kmalloced.
> So no there is nothing to be gained from having kmem_cache_ksize.
> 
> However, for kmalloced memory we're wasting hundreds of bytes
> for the standard 1500 byte allocation without ksize which means
> that we're doing reallocations (and sometimes copying) when it
> isn't necessary.

Yeah. That sucks. We should probably stick in an skb-friendly slab size
and see what happens on network benchmarks.

-- 
http://selenic.com : development and support for Mercurial and Linux


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>