[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080529231618.56e4028b.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 23:16:18 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Mike Travis <travis@....com>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/41] cpu alloc / cpu ops v3: Optimize per cpu access
On Fri, 30 May 2008 08:01:02 +0200 Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> wrote:
> Really, percpu allocations are currently not frequent at all.
>
> vmalloc()/vfreee() are way more frequent and still use a list.
Sure it's hard to conceive how anyone could go and do a per-cpu
allocation on a fastpath.
But this has nothing to do with the frequency! The problems surround
the _amount_ of allocated memory and the allocation/freeing patterns.
Here's another example. And it's only an example! Generalise!
ext3 maintains three percpu_counters per mount. Each percpu_counter
does one percpu_alloc. People can mount an arbitrary number of ext3
filesystems!
Another: there are two percpu_counters (and hence two percpu_alloc()s)
per backing_dev_info. One backing_dev_info per disk and people have
been known to have thousands (iirc ~10,000) disks online.
And those examples were plucked only from today's kernel. Who knows
what other problems will be in 2.6.45?
--
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