From: Sarah> Sharp
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:24:47AM -, David Laight wrote:
> > This saves a kzalloc() call on every transfer and some memory
> > indirections.
> >
...
> Hi David,
>
> The patch looks good in general and applies fine. However, in testing
> this with a USB mass storage devic
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 03:29:31PM +, David Laight wrote:
> > From: 'David Cohen'
> ...
> > I actually don't know what's the regular range of 'td_cnt'. But what got my
> > attention was this comment from patch description:
> >
> > "The only possible downside is for isochronous tranfers with 64
> From: 'David Cohen'
...
> I actually don't know what's the regular range of 'td_cnt'. But what got my
> attention was this comment from patch description:
>
> "The only possible downside is for isochronous tranfers with 64 td
> when the allocate is 8+4096 bytes (on 64bit systems) so requires
> a
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 09:25:42AM +, David Laight wrote:
> > From: 'David Cohen'
> ...
> > > > The new kmalloc is going to be "n * sizeof(struct) - n *
> > > > sizeof(pointer)"
> > > > bigger. I don't know what is the usual range of values for "n", but my
> > > > experience with android devic
> From: 'David Cohen'
...
> > > The new kmalloc is going to be "n * sizeof(struct) - n * sizeof(pointer)"
> > > bigger. I don't know what is the usual range of values for "n", but my
> > > experience with android devices with non-abundant memory size is that
> > > they are sensible to kmalloc > PAG
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 09:29:30AM +, David Laight wrote:
> > From: 'David Cohen'
> > On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 09:26:20AM +, David Laight wrote:
> > > > From: David Cohen
> > > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 09:26:35AM -, David Laight wrote:
> > > > > > From: David Cohen
> > > > > The effect
> From: 'David Cohen'
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 09:26:20AM +, David Laight wrote:
> > > From: David Cohen
> > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 09:26:35AM -, David Laight wrote:
> > > > > From: David Cohen
> > > > The effect of this change is really to remove the first allocation and
> > > > add 8
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 09:26:20AM +, David Laight wrote:
> > From: David Cohen
> > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 09:26:35AM -, David Laight wrote:
> > > > From: David Cohen
> > > The effect of this change is really to remove the first allocation and
> > > add 8 bytes (or maybe a pointer) to the
> From: David Cohen
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 09:26:35AM -, David Laight wrote:
> > > From: David Cohen
> > The effect of this change is really to remove the first allocation and
> > add 8 bytes (or maybe a pointer) to the start of the second one.
> > So it is extremely unlikely to fail when th
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 09:26:35AM -, David Laight wrote:
> > From: David Cohen
> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:24:47AM -, David Laight wrote:
> > > This saves a kzalloc() call on every transfer and some memory
> > > indirections.
> > >
> > > The only possible downside is for isochronous tra
> From: David Cohen
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:24:47AM -, David Laight wrote:
> > This saves a kzalloc() call on every transfer and some memory
> > indirections.
> >
> > The only possible downside is for isochronous tranfers with 64 td
> > when the allocate is 8+4096 bytes (on 64bit systems)
> From: Steve Calfee
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:24 AM, David Laight wrote:
> >
> > This saves a kzalloc() call on every transfer and some memory
> > indirections.
> >
> > The only possible downside is for isochronous tranfers with 64 td
> > when the allocate is 8+4096 bytes (on 64bit systems) so
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:24:47AM -, David Laight wrote:
> This saves a kzalloc() call on every transfer and some memory
> indirections.
>
> The only possible downside is for isochronous tranfers with 64 td
> when the allocate is 8+4096 bytes (on 64bit systems) so requires
> an additional pag
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:24 AM, David Laight wrote:
>
> This saves a kzalloc() call on every transfer and some memory
> indirections.
>
> The only possible downside is for isochronous tranfers with 64 td
> when the allocate is 8+4096 bytes (on 64bit systems) so requires
> an additional page.
>
>
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:24:47AM -, David Laight wrote:
> This saves a kzalloc() call on every transfer and some memory
> indirections.
>
> The only possible downside is for isochronous tranfers with 64 td
> when the allocate is 8+4096 bytes (on 64bit systems) so requires
> an additional pag
This saves a kzalloc() call on every transfer and some memory
indirections.
The only possible downside is for isochronous tranfers with 64 td
when the allocate is 8+4096 bytes (on 64bit systems) so requires
an additional page.
Signed-off-by: David Laight
---
v2: Added signed-off-by line
drive
16 matches
Mail list logo