[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <487644E7.6080609@sgi.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:20:39 -0700
From: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/15] x86_64: Optimize percpu accesses
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Mike Travis wrote:
>> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> ...
>>> Another alternative that almost fares better then a segment with
>>> a base of zero is a base of -32K or so. Only trouble that would get us
>>> manually managing the per cpu area size again.
>>
>> One thing to remember is the eventual goal is implementing the cpu_alloc
>> functions which I think we've agreed has to be "growable". This means
>> that
>> the addresses will need to be virtual to allow the same offsets for
>> all cpus.
>> The patchset I have uses 2Mb pages. This "little" twist might figure
>> into the
>> implementation issues that are being discussed.
>>
>
> No, since the *addresses* can be arbitrary. The current issue is about
> *offsets.*
>
> -hpa
Ok, thanks for clearing that up. I just didn't want us to drop the ball
trying to make that double play... ;-)
Cheers,
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