On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 10:43:27AM -0500, Seth Jennings wrote:
> On 08/31/2011 09:40 AM, Seth Jennings wrote:
>
> > +static struct xcf_blkdesc *xcf_find_remove_block(struct xcf_pool *pool,
> > + int size, int blocknum)
> > +{
> > + int flindex, i;
> > + struct xcf_blkdesc *desc = NULL;
> > +
> > + flindex = xcf_size_to_flindex(size + sizeof(struct xcf_blkhdr));
> > +
> > + /* look for best fit */
> > + if (pool->freelists[flindex])
> > + goto remove;
> > +
> > + /* if this is the last block allowed in the allocation, we shouldn't
> > + * consider smaller blocks. it's all or nothing now */
> > + if (blocknum == XCF_MAX_BLOCKS_PER_ALLOC) {
>
> In gathering my performance numbers for Dan, I discovered I introduced
> a regression by making a late change in my development.
>
> This line should be:
> if (blocknum != XCF_MAX_BLOCKS_PER_ALLOC) {
>
> This regression actually causes xcfmalloc to have the same fragmentation
> issue as xvmalloc.
Ok, care to resend a tested and correct patch series then?
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
