From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by qyk5 with SMTP id 5so3339044qyk.14 for ; Mon, 01 Dec 2008 09:32:57 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <84144f020812010932l540b26dr57716d8abea2562@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 19:32:56 +0200 From: "Pekka Enberg" Subject: Re: [patch][rfc] acpi: do not use kmem caches In-Reply-To: <84144f020812010925r6c5f9c85p32f180c06085b496@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20081201083128.GB2529@wotan.suse.de> <20081201120002.GB10790@wotan.suse.de> <4933E2C3.4020400@gmail.com> <1228138641.14439.18.camel@penberg-laptop> <4933F925.3020907@gmail.com> <20081201162018.GF10790@wotan.suse.de> <49341915.5000900@gmail.com> <20081201171219.GI10790@wotan.suse.de> <84144f020812010925r6c5f9c85p32f180c06085b496@mail.gmail.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Alexey Starikovskiy , Christoph Lameter , Linux Memory Management List , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, lenb@kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote: > Though I suspect using kmem caches to combat the internal > fragmentation caused by kmalloc() rounding is not worth it in this > case. Btw, just for the record, the ACPI objects are indeed a bad fit for kmalloc() as reported by SLUB statistics: [ The size of ACPI kmem caches with wasted bytes per object in parenthesis. ] 32-bit size 64-bit size Acpi-Namespace 24 (8) 32 (0) Acpi-Operand 40 (24) 72 (24) Acpi-Parse 32 (0) 48 (16) Acpi-ParseExt 44 (20) 72 (24) Acpi-State 44 (20) 80 (16) Though I suspect this situation could be improved by avoiding those fairly big unions ACPI does (like union acpi_operand_object). -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org