Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "23cc5a991c7a".
Did you mean:
23cc5a991c
2017 Jan 04
2
GFP_REPEAT usage in vhost_net_open resp. vhost_vsock_dev_open
...vmalloc fallback users
[1] and my current kvmalloc_node helper doesn't support GFP_REPEAT
because there are no users which would need it. At least that's what I
thought until I've encountered vhost_vsock_dev_open resp.
vhost_vsock_dev_open which are trying to use GFP_REPEAT for kmalloc.
23cc5a991c7a ("vhost-net: extend device allocation to vmalloc") explains
the motivation as follows:
"
As vmalloc() adds overhead on a critical network path, add __GFP_REPEAT
to kzalloc() flags to do this fallback only when really needed.
"
I am wondering whether vmalloc adds more overhead t...
2017 Jan 04
2
GFP_REPEAT usage in vhost_net_open resp. vhost_vsock_dev_open
...vmalloc fallback users
[1] and my current kvmalloc_node helper doesn't support GFP_REPEAT
because there are no users which would need it. At least that's what I
thought until I've encountered vhost_vsock_dev_open resp.
vhost_vsock_dev_open which are trying to use GFP_REPEAT for kmalloc.
23cc5a991c7a ("vhost-net: extend device allocation to vmalloc") explains
the motivation as follows:
"
As vmalloc() adds overhead on a critical network path, add __GFP_REPEAT
to kzalloc() flags to do this fallback only when really needed.
"
I am wondering whether vmalloc adds more overhead t...
2017 Jan 04
0
GFP_REPEAT usage in vhost_net_open resp. vhost_vsock_dev_open
...t; [1] and my current kvmalloc_node helper doesn't support GFP_REPEAT
> because there are no users which would need it. At least that's what I
> thought until I've encountered vhost_vsock_dev_open resp.
> vhost_vsock_dev_open which are trying to use GFP_REPEAT for kmalloc.
> 23cc5a991c7a ("vhost-net: extend device allocation to vmalloc") explains
> the motivation as follows:
> "
> As vmalloc() adds overhead on a critical network path, add __GFP_REPEAT
> to kzalloc() flags to do this fallback only when really needed.
> "
>
> I am wondering w...