From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1161599AbXEDShV@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1161599AbXEDShV (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 4 May 2007 14:37:21 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161608AbXEDShU
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Fri, 4 May 2007 14:37:20 -0400
Received: from amsfep17-int.chello.nl ([213.46.243.15]:4820 "EHLO
	amsfep14-int.chello.nl" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161605AbXEDShR (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 4 May 2007 14:37:17 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/40] mm: kmem_cache_objsize
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
       Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>,
       Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
       James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>,
       Mike Christie <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Daniel Phillips <phillips@google.com>,
       Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705041128270.24283@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
References: <20070504102651.923946304@chello.nl>
	 <20070504103157.215424767@chello.nl>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705040932200.22033@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
	 <1178301545.24217.56.camel@twins>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705041104110.23539@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
	 <1178302904.2767.6.camel@lappy>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705041128270.24283@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 20:32:18 +0200
Message-Id: <1178303538.2767.9.camel@lappy>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.1 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 11:30 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > > Ok so you really need the number of objects per page? If you know the 
> > > number of objects then you can calculate the pages needed which would be 
> > > the maximum memory needed?
> > 
> > Yes, that would work.
> 
> Hmmm... Maybe lets have
> 
> unsigned kmem_estimate_pages(struct kmem_cache *slab_cache, int objects)
> 
> which would calculate the worst case memory scenario for allocation the 
> number of indicated objects?

Perfectly fine with me, Pekka, any objections?