-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Davide Libenzi wrote: > Uli, would it be OK to rely only on base randomization and use a LIFO > instead? We have base randomization, plus LIFO does not mean strictly > sequential like legacy allocator, just more compatc and cache friendly.
If FIFO is slowing things down it's certainly OK to you LIFO. If there is wiggle room (i.e., choose between two descriptors without additional cost) then taking advantage of this would be of advantage. A policy which enforces that only the last closed descriptor is not reused immediately might might be enough. Maybe that's too specific for people's taste. - -- ➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGaGRP2ijCOnn/RHQRAv2qAJ0WzyKvOPx01PviCp4L/mUmNaehtQCfdKF5 4Qc7Uj47zY8jdqUZf+Ht3gs= =jRfN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
