On 09/27/2012 07:07 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
>
>> --- a/mm/slab_common.c
>> +++ b/mm/slab_common.c
>> @@ -239,7 +239,23 @@ static void s_stop(struct seq_file *m, void *p)
>>
>> static int s_show(struct seq_file *m, void *p)
>> {
>> - return slabinfo_show(m, p);
>> + struct kmem_cache *s = list_entry(p, struct kmem_cache, list);
>> + struct slabinfo sinfo;
>> +
>> + memset(&sinfo, 0, sizeof(sinfo));
>> + get_slabinfo(s, &sinfo);
>
> Could get_slabinfo() also set the objects per slab etc in some additional
> field in struct slabinfo? Then we can avoid the exporting of the oo_
> functions and we do not need the cache_order() etc functions.
>
Yes. As a matter of fact, I first implemented it this way, and later
switched. I was anticipating that people would be likely to point out
that those properties are directly derivable from the caches, and it
would be better to just get them from there.
I am more than happy to stick them in the slabinfo struct.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>