[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080710202453.GA7534@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 22:24:53 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Mike Travis <travis@....com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/15] x86_64: Optimize percpu accesses
* Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
> Mike Travis <travis@....com> writes:
>
>
> > The biggest growth came from moving all the xxx[NR_CPUS] arrays into
> > the per cpu area. So you free up a huge amount of unused memory
> > when the NR_CPUS count starts getting into the ozone layer. 4k now,
> > 16k real soon now, ??? future?
>
> Hmm. Do you know how big a role kernel_stat plays.
>
> It is a per cpu structure that is sized via NR_IRQS. NR_IRQS is by
> NR_CPUS. So ultimately the amount of memory take up is
> NR_CPUS*NR_CPUS*32 or so.
>
> I have a patch I wrote long ago, that addresses that specific nasty
> configuration by moving the per cpu irq counters into pointer
> available from struct irq_desc.
>
> The next step which I did not get to (but is interesting from a
> scaling perspective) was to start dynamically allocating the irq
> structures.
/me willing to test & babysit any test-patch in that area ...
this is a big problem and it's getting worse quadratically ;-)
Ingo
--
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