From 3c08fd7d055d016ac7e473946749daef2e83a281 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: alc Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 17:28:00 +0000 Subject: Fix spelling errors. --- sys/vm/uma_int.h | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) (limited to 'sys/vm/uma_int.h') diff --git a/sys/vm/uma_int.h b/sys/vm/uma_int.h index 7713593..ae3e2ff 100644 --- a/sys/vm/uma_int.h +++ b/sys/vm/uma_int.h @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ * * The uma_slab_t may be embedded in a UMA_SLAB_SIZE chunk of memory or it may * be allocated off the page from a special slab zone. The free list within a - * slab is managed with a linked list of indexes, which are 8 bit values. If + * slab is managed with a linked list of indices, which are 8 bit values. If * UMA_SLAB_SIZE is defined to be too large I will have to switch to 16bit * values. Currently on alpha you can get 250 or so 32 byte items and on x86 * you can get 250 or so 16byte items. For item sizes that would yield more @@ -56,9 +56,9 @@ * wasted between items due to alignment problems. This may yield a much better * memory footprint for certain sizes of objects. Another alternative is to * increase the UMA_SLAB_SIZE, or allow for dynamic slab sizes. I prefer - * dynamic slab sizes because we could stick with 8 bit indexes and only use + * dynamic slab sizes because we could stick with 8 bit indices and only use * large slab sizes for zones with a lot of waste per slab. This may create - * ineffeciencies in the vm subsystem due to fragmentation in the address space. + * inefficiencies in the vm subsystem due to fragmentation in the address space. * * The only really gross cases, with regards to memory waste, are for those * items that are just over half the page size. You can get nearly 50% waste, -- cgit v1.1