From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] irda: use sock slab cache Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 08:54:54 +0000 Message-ID: <20050120085454.GA31160@infradead.org> References: <41EF11AF.70203@conectiva.com.br> <20050120021607.GA11216@bougret.hpl.hp.com> <41EF29BE.2020807@conectiva.com.br> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: jt@hpl.hp.com, "David S. Miller" , irda-users@lists.sourceforge.net, netdev@oss.sgi.com, Stephen Hemminger Return-path: To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41EF29BE.2020807@conectiva.com.br> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 01:47:10AM -0200, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > I'm just curious about the overhead of adding a specific slab > >for IrDA sockets. Most users never create any (using IrCOMM), or > >maximum one (using Obex), so it's not like it will get a lot of use > >(except here, of course). > > Well, lets start with something that may sound funny: when this series > of patches is finished the overhead will _decrease_ for most people. > > Why? Today we have in most machines five slab caches of this nature: > udp_sock, raw_sock, tcp_sock, unix_sock (PF_LOCAL) and the generic, > sock, that only is used by the protocols that are using > kmalloc(pritave_sock) + > sk_protinfo. But as Jean sais this type of socket is used very little, as are a few other probably (raw, pfkey?), so maybe those should just use kmalloc + kfree instead of their own slab?