Re: [PATCH 3/6] compcache: TLSF Allocator interface

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Nitin Gupta <nitingupta910@...>
Cc: <linux-kernel@...>, <linux-mm@...>
Date: Monday, March 24, 2008 - 2:56 pm

On Mon, 2008-03-24 at 23:04 +0530, Nitin Gupta wrote:

Yeah, it also suffers from a horrible coding style, can use excessive
amounts of vmalloc space, isn't hooked into the reclaim process as an
allocator should be and has a severe lack of per-cpu data making it a
pretty big bottleneck on anything with more than a few cores.

Now, it might be needed, might work better, and the scalability issue
might not be a problem when used for swap, but still, you don't treat
any of these points in your changelog.

FWIW, please split up the patches in a sane way. This series looks like
it wants to be 2 or 3 patches. The first introducing all of TLSF (this
split per file is horrible). The second doing all of the block device,
and a possible last doing documentation and such.

Also, how bad was kmalloc() compared to this TLSF, we need numbers :-)

--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH 3/6] compcache: TLSF Allocator interface, Nitin Gupta, (Mon Mar 24, 11:04 am)
Re: [PATCH 3/6] compcache: TLSF Allocator interface, Peter Zijlstra, (Mon Mar 24, 12:56 pm)
Re: [PATCH 3/6] compcache: TLSF Allocator interface, Nitin Gupta, (Mon Mar 24, 1:34 pm)
Re: [PATCH 3/6] compcache: TLSF Allocator interface, Peter Zijlstra, (Mon Mar 24, 2:56 pm)
Re: [PATCH 3/6] compcache: TLSF Allocator interface, Nitin Gupta, (Thu Apr 3, 1:23 pm)
Re: [PATCH 3/6] compcache: TLSF Allocator interface, Nitin Gupta, (Mon Mar 24, 3:10 pm)