On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 23:25:36 +0200 (EET)
"Pekka Enberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 3/19/2007, "Andrew Morton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Would prefer to do:
> >
> > static inline void kmem_cache_free_if_not_null(struct kmem_cache *cachep,
> > void *objp)
> > {
> > if (objp)
> > kmem_cache_free(cachep, objp);
> > }
> >
> > so that we don't add extra overhead to all the thousands of existing,
> > well-behaved callsites.
>
> That bloats kernel text all the same
But only for those callsites which choose to use it! We avoid adding a
test-and-branch to those thousands of callsite which don't need it.
This is a super-hot path.
> so it's much cleaner to just make
> the callers explicitly check for NULL then. That said, I'm sorry but I
> just don't buy the "overhead" part of your argument since it's one
> branch and no extra data cache pressure especially as we're already
> doing the BUG_ON and page flag checking.
The BUG_ON (at least) should probably be moved into CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB.
> But, since you're NAKing my patch, we need to get the mempool for from
> the original thread in to fix the oops.
We need to fix scsi rather than working around it in slab or in mempool -
it appears that it's getting its sg lists tangled up, and the problem has
been known since November (at least).
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
