Pekka Enberg wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 16:12 +0300, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
Actually I think it is also somewhat of a bugfix (not to mention that it
seems like a good idea to share testing code with other operating systems).
It is not "kind of a bugfix". Caches were used to allocate all frequenly
created objects of fixed size. Removing native cache interface will
increase memory consumption and increase code size, and will make it harder
to spot actual memory leaks.
Excuse me?
Why do you think Nick's patch is going to _increase_ memory consumption?
SLUB _already_ merges the ACPI caches with kmalloc caches so you won't
see any difference there. For SLAB, it's a gain because there's not
enough activity going on which results in lots of unused space in the
slabs (which is, btw, the reason SLUB does slab merging in the first
place).
Because SLAB has standard memory wells of 2^x size. None of cached ACPI
objects has exactly this size, so bigger block will be used. Plus,
internal ACPICA
caching will add some overhead.
I'm also wondering why you think it's going to increase text size.
Unless the ACPI code is doing something weird, the kmalloc() and
kzalloc() shouldn't be a problem at all.
if you don't use ACPI_USE_LOCAL_CACHE
ACPICA will enable it's own cache implementation, so it will increase
code size.
For memory leaks, CONFIG_SLAB_LEAK has been in mainline for a long time
plus there are the kmemleak patches floating around. So I fail to see
how it's going to be harder to spot the memory leaks.
It will give you a memory leak, not the kind of it, right?
After all, the
rest of the kernel manages fine without a special wrapper, so how is
ACPI any different here?
Do you have another interpreter in kernel space?
Regards,
Alex.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
