[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] tvec_bases too large for per-cpu data
    "Jan Beulich" <> wrote:
    > >>> Andrew Morton <> 21.01.06 08:25:00 >>>
    > >"Jan Beulich" <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> The biggest arch-independent consumer is tvec_bases (over 4k on 32-bit
    > >> archs,
    > >> over 8k on 64-bit ones), which now gets converted to use dynamically
    > >> allocated
    > >> memory instead.
    > >
    > >ho hum, another pointer hop.
    > >
    > >Did you consider using alloc_percpu()?
    > I did, but I saw drawbacks with that (most notably the fact that all instances are allocated at
    > once, possibly wasting a lot of memory).

    It's 4k for each cpu which is in the possible_map but which will never be
    brought online. I don't think that'll be a lot of memory - are there
    machines which have a lot of possible-but-not-really-there CPUs?

    > >The patch does trickery in init_timers_cpu() which, from my reading, defers
    > >the actual per-cpu allocation until the second CPU comes online.
    > >Presumably because of some ordering issue which you discovered. Readers of
    > >the code need to know what that issue was.
    > No, I don't see any trickery there (on demand allocation in CPU_UP_PREPARE is being done
    > elsewhere in very similar ways), and I also didn't see any ordering issues. Hence I also didn't
    > see any need to explain this in detail.

    There _must_ be ordering issues. Otherwise we'd just dynamically allocate
    all the structs up-front and be done with it.

    Presumably the ordering issue is that init_timers() is called before
    kmem_cache_init(). That's non-obvious and should be commented.

    > >And boot_tvec_bases will always be used for the BP, and hence one slot in
    > >the per-cpu array will forever be unused. Until the BP is taken down and
    > >brought back up, in which case it will suddenly start to use a dynamically
    > >allocated structure.
    > Why? Each slot is allocated at most once, the BP's is never allocated (it will continue to use the
    > static one even when brought down and back up).

    OK, I missed the `if (likely(!base))' test in there. Patch seems OK from
    that POV and we now seem to know what the ordering problem is.

    - The `#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA' in init_timers_cpu() seems to be unnecessary -
    kmalloc_node() will use kmalloc() if !NUMA.

    - The likely()s in init_timers_cpu() seems fairly pointless - it's not a

    - We prefer to do this:

    if (expr) {
    } else {

    and not

    if (expr) {
    else {

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-01-23 12:01    [W:0.040 / U:25.444 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site