[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0802271353520.12963@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:56:55 -0800 (PST)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: dada1@...mosbay.com, davem@...emloft.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com, travis@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] alloc_percpu() fails to allocate percpu data
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:59:32 -0800 (PST)
> Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> wrote:
>
> > Any decision made on what to do about this one? Mike or I can
> > repost the per cpu allocator against mm? The fix by Eric could be used
> > in the interim for 2.6.24?
> >
>
> I suppose I'll merge Eric's patch when I've tested it fully (well, as fully
> as I test stuff).
Urgh. You too?
> It'd be nice to get that cache_line_size()/L1_CACHE_BYTES/L1_CACHE_ALIGN()
> mess sorted out. If it's a mess - I _think_ it is?
Well I tried it when slub went first in and it did not go well. The issue
is that x86 detects the cache line size on bootup. Thus cache_line_size().
Most of the other arch have compile time cache line sizes. Thus
L1_CACHE_BYTES. So L1_CACHE_BYTES is the maximum value that
cache_line_size() can take.
What I was attempting to do is to make x86 have one compile time cache
line size L1_CACHE_BYTES. That raised objections because space was wasted.
--
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