Re: Purpose of the mm/slab.c changes

From: Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Date: Sun Sep 09 2001 - 11:47:12 EST

Next message: Michael Rothwell: "Re: nfs is stupid ("getfh failed")"
Previous message: faybaby: "sb live problem with 2.4.9 (was working)"
In reply to: Linus Torvalds: "Re: Purpose of the mm/slab.c changes"
Next in thread: Manfred Spraul: "Re: Purpose of the mm/slab.c changes"
Reply: Manfred Spraul: "Re: Purpose of the mm/slab.c changes"
Reply: Stephan Gutschke: "Fwd: 2.4.10-pre6 ramdisk driver broken? won't compile"
Reply: Linus Torvalds: "Re: Purpose of the mm/slab.c changes"
Reply: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: Purpose of the mm/slab.c changes"
Reply: Rik van Riel: "Re: Purpose of the mm/slab.c changes"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> > doesn't matter which free page is used first/last.
>
> You're full of crap.
> LIFO is obviously superior due to cache re-use.

Interersting question however. On SMP without sufficient per CPU slab caches
is tht still the case ?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Michael Rothwell: "Re: nfs is stupid ("getfh failed")"
Previous message: faybaby: "sb live problem with 2.4.9 (was working)"
In reply to: Linus Torvalds: "Re: Purpose of the mm/slab.c changes"
Next in thread: Manfred Spraul: "Re: Purpose of the mm/slab.c changes"
Reply: Manfred Spraul: "Re: Purpose of the mm/slab.c changes"
Reply: Stephan Gutschke: "Fwd: 2.4.10-pre6 ramdisk driver broken? won't compile"
Reply: Linus Torvalds: "Re: Purpose of the mm/slab.c changes"
Reply: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: Purpose of the mm/slab.c changes"
Reply: Rik van Riel: "Re: Purpose of the mm/slab.c changes"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 15 2001 - 21:00:19 EST