On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:18:07PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote: > On Wed, 11 Feb 2015, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > > This patch is referencing functions that don't exist and can do so since > > > it's not compiled, but I think this belongs in the next patch. I also > > > think that this particular implementation may be slub-specific so I would > > > have expected just a call to an allocator-defined > > > __kmem_cache_alloc_array() here with i = __kmem_cache_alloc_array(). > > > > The implementation is generic and can be used in the same way for SLAB. > > SLOB does not have these types of object though. > > > > Ok, I didn't know if the slab implementation would follow the same format > with the same callbacks or whether this would need to be cleaned up later. Hello, Christoph. I also think that this implementation is slub-specific. For example, in slab case, it is always better to access local cpu cache first than page allocator since slab doesn't use list to manage free objects and there is no cache line overhead like as slub. I think that, in kmem_cache_alloc_array(), just call to allocator-defined __kmem_cache_alloc_array() is better approach. Thanks. -- 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>