Messages in this thread |  | | From | Jack Steiner <> | Subject | Re: [Lse-tech] [RFC] [PATCH] Scalable Statistics Counters | Date | Sun, 9 Dec 2001 11:34:43 -0600 (CST) |
| |
> > I think Jack got his attribution wrong. Which is good for me, > since I wrote what Jack just gently demolished <grin>.
And I probably should not have been reading mail while I debugged a weird system hang. :-) I missed the earlier part of the thread - I though you were refering to local allocation.
I dont think I have a strong opinion yet about kmem_cache_alloc_node() vs kmem_cache_alloc_cpu(). I would not be surprised to find that both interfaces make sense.
If code want to allocate close to a cpu, then kmem_cache_alloc_cpu() is the best choice. However, I would also expect that some code already knows the node. Then kmem_cache_alloc_node() is best.
Conversion of cpu->node is easy. Conversion of node->cpu is slightly more difficult (currently) and has the ambiguity that there may be multiple cpus on the node - which one should you select? And does it matter?
As precident, the page allocation routines are all node-based. (ie., alloc_pages_node(), etc...)
-- Thanks
Jack Steiner (651-683-5302) (vnet 233-5302) steiner@sgi.com
- 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/
|  |