[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080530155141.a87fa316.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 15:51:41 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
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 Thu, 29 May 2008 23:16:11 -0700 (PDT)
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 May 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > > No. The module subsystem has its own alloc_percpu subsystem that the
> > > cpu_alloc replaces.
> >
> > That is to support DEFINE_PER_CPU, not alloc_percpu().
>
> Right but it needs to have its own section of the percpu space from which
> it allocates the percpu segments for the modules. So it effectively
> implements an allocator.
>
Could you add a text to explain "This interface is for wise use of
pre-allocated limited area (see Documentation/xxxx). please use this only
when you need very fast access to per-cpu object and you can estimate the amount
which you finally need. If unsure, please use generic allocator."
for the moment ?
At first look, I thought of using this in memory-resource-controller but it seems
I shouldn't do so because thousands of cgroup can be used in theory...
Thanks,
-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