![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Christoph Lameter <christoph@lameter.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 17 May 2005, David S. Miller wrote: > > > > Because physically contiguous memory is usually better than virtually > > > contiguous memory? Any reason that physically contiguous memory will > > > break the driver? > > > > The issue is whether size can end up being too large for > > kmalloc() to satisfy, whereas vmalloc() would be able to > > handle it. > > Oww.. We need a NUMA aware vmalloc for this? I think the e1000 driver is being a bit insane there. I figure that sizeof(struct e1000_buffer) is 28 on 64-bit, so even with 4k pagesize we'll always succeed in being able to support a 32k/32 = 1024-entry Tx ring. Is there any real-world reason for wanting larger ring sizes than that? - 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: 2005-05-18 07:03 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||