lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: module changes
Date
In message <15954.22427.557293.353363@gargle.gargle.HOWL> you write:
> Rusty Russell writes:
> > D: This adds percpu support for modules. A module cannot have more
> > D: percpu data than the base kernel does (on my kernel 5636 bytes).
>
> This limitation is quite horrible.
>
> Does the implementation have to be perfect? The per_cpu API can easily
> be simulated using good old NR_CPUS arrays:

The problem is that then you have to have to know whether this is a
per-cpu thing created in a module, or not, when you use it 8(

There are two things we can use to alleviate the problem. The first
would be to put a minimal cap on the per-cpu data size (eg. 8k). The
other possibility is to allocate on an object granularity, in which
case the rule becomes "no single per-cpu object can be larger than
XXX", but the cost is to write a mini allocator.

I agree with you (and John) about disliking the limitation, but is it
worse than the current no per-cpu stuff in modules at all?

Thanks!
Rusty.
--
Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.
-
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 13:33    [W:0.055 / U:2.572 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site