On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 05:14:36PM +0300, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote: > Why then you try to delete ACPICA code, which might be just disabled by > undefining ACPI_USE_LOCAL_CACHE? > If you do want to go that path, you need to create patch against ACPICA, not > Linux code. Sorry dude, but that's not how Linux development works. Please talk to some intel OTC folks to get an advice on how it does. >> Ah OK I misread, that's the cache's freelist... ACPI shouldn't be poking >> this button inside the slab allocator anyway, honestly. What is it >> for? >> > And it is not actually used -- you cannot unload ACPI interpreter, and > this function is called only from there. Care to remove all this dead code? >> Is there a reasonable performance or memory win by using kmem cache? If >> not, then they should not be used > ACPI is still working in machines with several megabytes of RAM and > 100mhz Pentium processors. Do you say we should just not consider them > any longer? > If so, then just delete all ACPICA caches altogether. As Nick is trying to explain you for a while it's not actually going to be a performance benefit for these, quite contrary because of how slab caches waste a lot of memory when only used very lightly or not at all. -- 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
