lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] kmalloc_percpu -- 2 of 2
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 06:11:53PM +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
> > 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.

What do you base the trade-off decision on?

>
> 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/

--
---------------------------------------------------------
Victor Yodaiken
Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company.
www.fsmlabs.com www.rtlinux.com
1+ 505 838 9109

-
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 13:31    [W:0.047 / U:1.204 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site