From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] irda: use sock slab cache Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:08:06 -0200 Message-ID: <41F01DB6.3070605@conectiva.com.br> References: <41EF11AF.70203@conectiva.com.br> <20050120021607.GA11216@bougret.hpl.hp.com> <41EF29BE.2020807@conectiva.com.br> <20050120085454.GA31160@infradead.org> <41EFC671.6000706@conectiva.com.br> <41EFCC51.8030700@conectiva.com.br> <20050120172522.GF6839@bougret.hpl.hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Christoph Hellwig , "David S. Miller" , irda-users@lists.sourceforge.net, netdev@oss.sgi.com, Stephen Hemminger Return-path: To: jt@hpl.hp.com In-Reply-To: <20050120172522.GF6839@bougret.hpl.hp.com> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Jean Tourrilhes escreveu: > On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 01:20:49PM -0200, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: >>Take a look at this patch, it shows how I think the transitional >>stage should be, the protocols will just use (IRDA for the example): > > > Can't we just transition IrDA sockets to "future", rather than > "transitional". This way we are done, and no longer need to worry > about it. I mean, you already did the patch, so what's the reason of > holding back ? No, no reason, this latest scheme is good to balance the needs of performance protocols critical protocols (tcp, etc) and the ones where the overhead of a private slabcache is too much, the transitional solution is just to keep the "old protocols", i.e. the ones not converted yet, working for the time being. IRDA, from what we discussed, will be converted today to its final form, that is, without an slab cache, aggregate kmalloc at sk_alloc time, not using anymore the generic "sock" slab. - Arnaldo