Hi Matt,
On Monday 06 August 2007 13:23, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 12:29:22PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > In the interrest of getting swap over network working and posting
> > in smaller series, here is the first series.
> >
> > This series lays the foundations needed to d
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 12:29:22PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> In the interrest of getting swap over network working and posting in smaller
> series, here is the first series.
>
> This series lays the foundations needed to do reserve based allocation.
> Traditionally we have used mempools (a
On Monday 06 August 2007 12:36, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 12:31 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > On Monday 06 August 2007 11:17, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > And how do we know a page was taken out of the reserves?
> >
> > Why not return that in the low bit of the page address?
On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 12:31 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Monday 06 August 2007 11:17, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > And how do we know a page was taken out of the reserves?
>
> Why not return that in the low bit of the page address? This is a
> little more cache efficient, does not leave that
On Monday 06 August 2007 11:17, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> And how do we know a page was taken out of the reserves?
Why not return that in the low bit of the page address? This is a
little more cache efficient, does not leave that odd footprint in the
page union and forces the caller to examine th
On Monday 06 August 2007 11:17, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> lim_{n -> inf} (2^(n+1)/((2^n)+1)) = 2^lim_{n -> inf} ((n+1)-n) = 2^1
= 2
Glad I asked :-)
> > Patch [3/10] adds a new field to struct page.
>
> No it doesn't.
True. It is not immediately obvious from the declaration that the
overloaded
On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 10:56 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > We want a guarantee for N bytes from kmalloc(), this translates to a demand
> > on the slab allocator for 2*N+m (due to the power-of-two nature of kmalloc
> > slabs), where m is the meta-
On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 10:35 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Monday 06 August 2007 03:29, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > We want a guarantee for N bytes from kmalloc(), this translates to a
> > demand on the slab allocator for 2*N+m (due to the power-of-two
> > nature of kmalloc slabs), where m is th
On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> We want a guarantee for N bytes from kmalloc(), this translates to a demand
> on the slab allocator for 2*N+m (due to the power-of-two nature of kmalloc
> slabs), where m is the meta-data needed by the allocator itself.
The guarantee occurs in what con
On Monday 06 August 2007 03:29, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> In the interrest of getting swap over network working and posting in
> smaller series, here is the first series.
>
> This series lays the foundations needed to do reserve based
> allocation. Traditionally we have used mempools (and others like
10 matches
Mail list logo
