lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: #tj-percpu has been rebased
Date
On Wednesday 18 February 2009 17:10:20 H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Rusty Russell wrote:
> >>>
> >> num_possible_cpus() can be very large though, so in many cases the
> >> likelihood of finding that many pages approach zero. Furthermore,
> >> num_possible_cpus() may be quite a bit larger than the actual number of
> >> CPUs in the system.
> >
> > Sure, so we end up at vmalloc. No worse, but simpler and much better if we
> > *can* do it.
>
> If the likelihood is near zero, then you're wasting opportunities to do
> it better. If we have compact per-cpu virtual areas then we can use
> large pages if we know we'll have large percpu areas.

You're right; we'd need that defrag wonderness people keep speculating about.

What finally convinced me is that the per-cpu chunks have to be at least the
size of the .data.percpu section (24k here). 7*num_possible_cpus() is even
worse.

Thanks,
Rusty.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-02-18 12:23    [W:0.077 / U:1.304 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site