Eric Sandeen wrote: > Theodore Ts'o wrote: >> Now that the SLUB seems to be fixed so that it respects the requested >> alignment, use kmem_cache_alloc() to allocator if the block size of >> the buffer heads to be allocated is less than the page size. >> Previously, we were using 16k page on a Power system for each buffer, >> even when the file system was using 1k or 4k block size. > > So, this undoes commit c089d490dfbf53bc0893dc9ef57cf3ee6448314d > more or less, right: > > JBD: Replace slab allocations with page allocations > > Author: Mingming Cao <cmm@xxxxxxxxxx> > > JBD allocate memory for committed_data and frozen_data from slab. However > JBD should not pass slab pages down to the block layer. > Use page allocator pages instead. This will also prepare JBD for the large blocksize patchset. > > Was alignment the only reason that commit went in? Actually, Christoph reminded me that iscsi & co will not like this. See commit 1fa40b01ae4d1b00e366d4949edcc230f5cd6d99 for xfs moving in the opposite direction back in 2007... -Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
