Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 18 Feb 2003 19:51:40 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: module changes |
| |
Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote: > > 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. >
Is kmalloc_percpu() not suitable? - 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/
| |