From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755437Ab1IFXyS (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Sep 2011 19:54:18 -0400 Received: from out4.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]:34656 "EHLO out4.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755355Ab1IFXyO (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Sep 2011 19:54:14 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: jha/KjSAsH98NajE6fx8cwWqkCa0fOqZSlmvUc1fYmoU 1315353253 Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 16:51:29 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Seth Jennings Cc: gregkh@suse.de, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, dan.magenheimer@oracle.com, ngupta@vflare.org, cascardo@holoscopio.com, rdunlap@xenotime.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] staging: zcache: xcfmalloc memory allocator for zcache Message-ID: <20110906235129.GA26281@kroah.com> References: <1314801641-15059-1-git-send-email-sjenning@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1314801641-15059-2-git-send-email-sjenning@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4E5FA81F.6060607@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E5FA81F.6060607@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 10:43:27AM -0500, Seth Jennings wrote: > On 08/31/2011 09:40 AM, Seth Jennings wrote: > > > +static struct xcf_blkdesc *xcf_find_remove_block(struct xcf_pool *pool, > > + int size, int blocknum) > > +{ > > + int flindex, i; > > + struct xcf_blkdesc *desc = NULL; > > + > > + flindex = xcf_size_to_flindex(size + sizeof(struct xcf_blkhdr)); > > + > > + /* look for best fit */ > > + if (pool->freelists[flindex]) > > + goto remove; > > + > > + /* if this is the last block allowed in the allocation, we shouldn't > > + * consider smaller blocks. it's all or nothing now */ > > + if (blocknum == XCF_MAX_BLOCKS_PER_ALLOC) { > > In gathering my performance numbers for Dan, I discovered I introduced > a regression by making a late change in my development. > > This line should be: > if (blocknum != XCF_MAX_BLOCKS_PER_ALLOC) { > > This regression actually causes xcfmalloc to have the same fragmentation > issue as xvmalloc. Ok, care to resend a tested and correct patch series then? greg k-h