From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f169.google.com (mail-io0-f169.google.com [209.85.223.169]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4370A6B0257 for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 09:57:54 -0500 (EST) Received: by ioir85 with SMTP id r85so183284842ioi.1 for ; Mon, 07 Dec 2015 06:57:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from resqmta-ch2-08v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-08v.sys.comcast.net. [2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:40]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p19si21988503igs.16.2015.12.07.06.57.53 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 07 Dec 2015 06:57:53 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 08:57:52 -0600 (CST) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] slab: implement bulk alloc in SLAB allocator In-Reply-To: <20151207112057.1566dd5c@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <20151203155600.3589.86568.stgit@firesoul> <20151203155637.3589.62609.stgit@firesoul> <20151207112057.1566dd5c@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Vladimir Davydov , Joonsoo Kim , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton On Mon, 7 Dec 2015, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > A question: SLAB takes the "boot_cache" into account before calling > should_failslab(), but SLUB does not. Should we also do so for SLUB? Not necessary in SLUB. > Besides, maybe we can consolidate first loop and replace it with > slab_post_alloc_hook()? Ok. > Or should we create trace calls that are specific to bulk'ing? > (which would allow us to study/record bulk sizes) I would prefer that. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org