[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200805171533.46295.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 15:33:46 +1000
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] modules: Use a better scheme for refcounting
On Friday 16 May 2008 23:41:16 Mike Travis wrote:
> Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Rusty Russell a écrit :
> >> Any chance I can ask you look at the issue of full dynamic per-cpu
> >> allocation?
> >
> > You mean using alloc_percpu() ? Problem is that current implementation
> > is expensive,
I mean rewriting alloc_percpu :)
> > We probably can change this to dynamic per-cpu as soon as Mike or
> > Christopher finish their work on new dynamic per-cpu implementation ?
>
> Yes, the zero-based percpu variables followed by the cpu_alloc patch should
> provide this and shrink the code quite well, including in some cases
> removing locking requirements (because the resultant instructions will be
> atomic.)
Ah, I hadn't realized that Mike was already working on this. Mike, have you
published patches already?
Thanks,
Rusty.
--
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