[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <473A1DEA.7000307@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:58:02 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-mm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
schwidefsky@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [patch 01/28] cpu alloc: The allocator
Christoph Lameter a écrit :
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, David Miller wrote:
>
>> One thing you could do is simply use a vmalloc allocation in the
>> non-virtualized case.
>
> Yuck. Meaning to add more crappy code. The bss limitations to 8M is a bit
> strange though. Do other platforms have the same issues?
Maybe not so crappy, because even for i386 code, you might use not a strict
vmalloc() implementation but at least reserving percpu space inside the
vmalloc range. (ie not use a dedicated area as your current patchset does)
This is because NR_CPUS is defaulted to 32 on i386 (with a limit of 256), so
reserving 256*256KB = 64 MB of virtual space might be too much. (this is half
the typical vmalloc area)
The idea would be :
- Reserving an area of NR_CPUS*256KB inside vmalloc() space (but of course not
allocating pages)
- Then for each non possible cpu, 'release' its 256KB area and give it back to
vmalloc free areas pool.
Once you add in mm/vmalloc.c all needed helpers, no need to use BSS Megablob
anymore ?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists