[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080222155916.9cc4ca6e.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:59:16 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>, akpm@...l.org,
torvalds@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Document huge memory/cache overhead of memory
controller in Kconfig
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:33:33 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > Another issue is that it will slightly increase TLB/cache
> > cost of the memory controller, but I think that would be a fair
> > trade off for it being zero cost when disabled but compiled
> > in.
> >
> > Doing it with vmalloc should be easy enough. I can do such
> > a patch later unless someone beats me to it...
> >
>
> I'll get to it, but I have too many things on my plate at the moment. KAMEZAWA
> also wanted to look at it. I looked through some vmalloc() internals yesterday
> and I am worried about allocating all the memory on a single node in a NUMA
> system and changing VMALLOC_XXXX on every architecture to provide more vmalloc
> space. I might be missing something obvious.
>
I'll post a series of patch to do that later (it's under debug now...)
I'm glad if people (including you) look it and give me advices.
Regards,
-Kame
--
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