Re: [patch 0/9] Critical Mempools

[Pekka Enberg]

Hi,

On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 16:41 -0800, Matthew Dobson wrote:
> Now, a few pages of memory could be incredibly crucial, since
> we're discussing an emergency (presumably) low-mem situation, but if
> we're going to be getting several requests for the same
> slab/kmalloc-size then we're probably better of giving a whole page to
> the slab allocator.  This is pure speculation, of course... :)

Yeah but even then there's no guarantee that the critical allocations
will be serviced first. The slab allocator can as well be giving away
bits of the fresh page to non-critical allocations. For the exact same
reason, I don't think it's enough that you pass a subsystem-specific
page pool to the slab allocator.

Sorry if this has been explained before but why aren't mempools
sufficient for your purposes? Also one more alternative would be to
create a separate object cache for each subsystem-specific critical
allocation and implement a internal "page pool" for the slab allocator
so that you could specify for the number of pages an object cache
guarantees to always hold on to.

				Pekka

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/