Re: subr_kmem

[Eric Haszlakiewicz <erh%nimenees.com@localhost>]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 09:09:29PM +0200, Lars Heidieker wrote:
> slight improvement on kmem(9):
> 
> splitting the lookup table into two parts
> - this reduces the size of the lookup table -> touching less cache-lines
>     (e.g. on 64bit down from 4096b to 1024b + 64b)
> - expanding cache size up to PAGE_SIZE for larger then 4k PAGE_SIZE
> machines (without blowing up the size of the lookup table further)
> 
> The size check under DIAGNOSTIC is moved back to the start of the
> allocated as it makes it more useful and we have given up the PAGE_SIZE
> alignment for kmem(9) on allocations >= PAGE_SIZE.
> 
> any objections?

Have you done any performance tests?  How much of a difference does this make?

eric