[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: module changes
Rusty Russell <> 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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.069 / U:3.944 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site