![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 11:33:15AM +0000, yodaiken@fsmlabs.com wrote: > > > > Well, kernel objects may not be that small, but one would expect > > the per-cpu parts of the kernel objects to be sometimes small, often down to > > a couple of counters counting statistics. > > > Doesn't your allocator increase chances of cache conflict on the same > cpu ? > You mean by increasing the footprint and the chance of eviction ? It is a compromise. Or you would face NR_CPUS bloat and non-NUMA-node-local accesses for all CPUs outside the NUMA node where your NR_CPUS array is located. Thanks -- Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com> http://lse.sourceforge.net Linux Technology Center, IBM Software Lab, Bangalore, India. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:31 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||