On Mon, 2 June 2003 16:59:25 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 16:53, Jörn Engel wrote:
> > Maybe lazy allocation. vmalloc() it with the first write(), which
> > should be never in production use. So the extra overhead doesn't
> > really matter.
> Seems reasonable.
Patch is in CVS.
Not 100% sure about the correct return code, if the lazy allocation
fails. Can you check that?
Matsunaga, I guess that the extra memory you now have on your machine
has more impact on performance than statical allocation would have.
Translate the saved memory into a monetary unit and you even have a
lart that works for managers.
-- You can't tell where a program is going to spend its time. Bottlenecks occur in surprising places, so don't try to second guess and put in a speed hack until you've proven that's where the bottleneck is. -- Rob Pike - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 07 2003 - 22:00:17 EST