From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751618AbWCGU6T (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Mar 2006 15:58:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751626AbWCGU6S (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Mar 2006 15:58:18 -0500 Received: from omx1-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.179.11]:31697 "EHLO omx1.americas.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751526AbWCGU6S (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Mar 2006 15:58:18 -0500 Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 14:58:01 -0600 From: Jack Steiner To: Pekka Enberg Cc: akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] - Allocate larger cache_cache if order 0 fails Message-ID: <20060307205801.GA12136@sgi.com> References: <20060307154805.GA3474@sgi.com> <84144f020603071136m21782038n8951c801627ae867@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <84144f020603071136m21782038n8951c801627ae867@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 09:36:04PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote: > Hi Jack, > > On 3/7/06, Jack Steiner wrote: > > - cache_estimate(0, cache_cache.buffer_size, cache_line_size(), 0, > > - &left_over, &cache_cache.num); > > + for (order = 0; order < MAX_ORDER; order++) { > > + cache_estimate(order, cache_cache.buffer_size, cache_line_size(), 0, > > + &left_over, &cache_cache.num); > > + if (cache_cache.num) > > + break; > > + } > > Any reason why you can't use calculate_slab_order() here? > > Pekka I think either will work & the amount of code is about the same. I chose the above because it was easier to see that change had no effect on existing platforms. Does anyone see a compelling reason for a different but equivalent implementation?? --- Jack