Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 6 May 2003 01:47:45 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] kmalloc_percpu |
| |
Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote: > > It's a tradeoff, but I think it's worth it for a kmalloc_percpu which > is fast, space-efficient and numa-aware, since the code is needed > anyway.
I don't beleive that kmalloc_percpu() itself needs to be fast, as you say.
The code is _not_ NUMA-aware. Is it?
> How about a compromise like the following (scaled with mem)? > Untested, but you get the idea...
> + /* Plenty of memory? 1GB = 64k per-cpu. */ > + pool_size = max(((long long)num_physpages << PAGE_SHIFT) / 16384, > + (long long)pool_size);
On 64GB 32-way that's 128MB of lowmem. Unpopular. I'd settle for a __setup thingy here, and a printk when the memory runs out.
btw, what's wrong with leaving kmalloc_percpu() as-is, and only using this allocator for DEFINE_PERCPU()?
- 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/
|  |