On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 05:08:50 +0200 Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 08:54:18PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 14:26:56 -0700 > > Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > > This patchset is a first pass at overhauling the getname/putname > > > > interface to use a struct. The idea here is to add a new getname_info > > > > struct that allow us to pass around some auxillary info along with > > > > the string that getname() returns. > > > > > > Couldn't you just use some of the free pointers in struct page? > > > (lru etc.) > > > > > > -Andi > > > > > > > We could do that if these were page allocations. They're not, however. > > __getname() does a PATH_MAX size allocation out of a slabcache. I get > > Ok I suppose slab is faster. In this case it's better to track > separately I agree. > Ummm...stupid question... I could see that allocating out of the slab would mean less waste when you have >4k pages, but why would it be faster than just allocating a page directly? Also, by "track separately" do you mean that you think I should drop patch 9 in this series and just do two allocations for a getname in all cases? -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
