[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200806131038.12987.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:38:12 +1000
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Martin Peschke <mp3@...ibm.com>,
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>,
Mike Travis <travis@....com>
Subject: Re: [patch 04/41] cpu ops: Core piece for generic atomic per cpu operations
On Friday 13 June 2008 03:19:51 Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Populating the per cpu areas on demand is a good thing especially for
> configurations with a large number of processors. If we really go to
> support 4k processor by default then we need to allocate the smallest
> amount of per cpu structures necessary. Maybe ACPI or so can tell us how
> many processors are possible and we only allocate those. But it would be
> best if the percpu structures are only allocated for actually active
> processors.
cpu_possible_map should definitely be minimal, but your point is well made:
dynamic percpu could actually cut memory allocation. If we go for a hybrid
scheme where static percpu is always allocated from the initial chunk,
however, we still need the current pessimistic overallocation.
Mike's a clever guy, I'm sure he'll think of something :)
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