[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4846AD84.2090800@sgi.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 07:58:12 -0700
From: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
CC: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
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>
Subject: Re: [patch 02/41] cpu alloc: The allocator
Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 30 May 2008, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>>> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(UNIT_TYPE, area[UNITS]);
>>>
>> area[] is not guaranteed to be aligned on anything but 4 bytes.
>>
>> If someone then needs to call cpu_alloc(8, GFP_KERNEL, 8), it might get an non
>> aligned result.
>>
>> Either you should add an __attribute__((__aligned__(PAGE_SIZE))),
>> or take into account the real address of area[] in cpu_alloc() to avoid waste
>> of up to PAGE_SIZE bytes
>> per cpu.
>
> I think cacheline aligning should be sufficient. People should not
> allocate large page aligned objects here.
I'm a bit confused. Why is DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED() conditioned on
ifdef MODULE?
#ifdef MODULE
#define SHARED_ALIGNED_SECTION ".data.percpu"
#else
#define SHARED_ALIGNED_SECTION ".data.percpu.shared_aligned"
#endif
#define DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(type, name) \
__attribute__((__section__(SHARED_ALIGNED_SECTION))) \
PER_CPU_ATTRIBUTES __typeof__(type) per_cpu__##name \
____cacheline_aligned_in_smp
Thanks,
Mike
--
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