From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932461AbWF3Kcj (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jun 2006 06:32:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932435AbWF3Kcj (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jun 2006 06:32:39 -0400 Received: from atlrel8.hp.com ([156.153.255.206]:27275 "EHLO atlrel8.hp.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932142AbWF3Kci (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jun 2006 06:32:38 -0400 Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 03:24:35 -0700 From: Stephane Eranian To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, perfmon@napali.hpl.hp.com Subject: Re: perfmon2 vector argument question Message-ID: <20060630102435.GA21819@frankl.hpl.hp.com> Reply-To: eranian@hpl.hp.com References: <20060619204012.GE26378@frankl.hpl.hp.com> <20060628201708.08af034c.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060628201708.08af034c.akpm@osdl.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organisation: HP Labs Palo Alto Address: HP Labs, 1U-17, 1501 Page Mill road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA. E-mail: eranian@hpl.hp.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrew, On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 08:17:08PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > Does someone have something else to propose? > > > > If not, what is your opinion of the two approaches above? > > > > The first approach should be fine - we do that in lots of places, such as > in core_sys_select(). > Ok, that's good to know. I looked at the stack consumption on x86 and it is comparable to what you do for core_sys_select(). > Applications mut be calling this thing at a heck of a rate for kfree() > overhead to matter. I trust CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB wasn't turned on... That was using a micro-benchmark to stress certain paths in perfmon. CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB was not turned on. Thanks. -- -Stephane