On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > Anyways, I think that silently relying on the fact that the allocator > never fails small allocations is kind of unreliable. What if this
We are not doing that though. If the allocation fails we do nothing. > > > + if (page->inuse < objects) > > > + list_move(&page->lru, > > > + slabs_by_inuse + page->inuse); > > > if (!page->inuse) > > > n->nr_partial--; > > > } > > > > The condition is always true. A page that has page->inuse == objects > > would not be on the partial list. > > > > This is in case we failed to allocate the slabs_by_inuse array. We only > have a list for empty slabs then (on stack). Ok in that case objects == 1. If you want to do this maybe do it in a more general way? You could allocate an array on the stack to deal with the common cases. I believe an array of 32 objects would be fine to allocate and cover most of the slab caches on the system? Would eliminate most of the allocations in kmem_cache_shrink. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
