RE: [PATCH v5 6/8] mem-pool: fill out functionality

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> > +void mem_pool_combine(struct mem_pool *dst, struct mem_pool *src) {
> > +	struct mp_block *p;
> > +
> > +	/* Append the blocks from src to dst */
> > +	if (dst->mp_block && src->mp_block) {
> > +		/*
> > +		 * src and dst have blocks, append
> > +		 * blocks from src to dst.
> > +		 */
> > +		p = dst->mp_block;
> > +		while (p->next_block)
> > +			p = p->next_block;
> > +
> > +		p->next_block = src->mp_block;
> 
> Just being curious, but does this interact with the "we carve out only from the
> first block" done in step 4/8?  The remaining unused space in the first block in
> the src pool would be wasted, which may not be such a big deal and may not
> even be worth comparing the available space in two blocks and picking a larger
> one.  But we do want to decide _after_ thinking things through nevertheless.

Good question - and this is something I had thought about.

In the context of current usage, this function is currently not
used frequently. It is only used in split index with
move_cache_to_base_index and remove_split_index. In either case,
the cache_entries should already be loaded into memory, and I
don't expect a big enough difference in the amount of left over
space to make a meaningful difference.

In the general case I could see this being a bigger case.

For now, I thought the logic as is was an appropriate tradeoff. I
don't think it would be complicated to do something smarter here,
but I also didn't see much benefit in current usage. If we prefer
something else here, I can update this logic.




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux