[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1hcaxo2h2.fsf@frodo.ebiederm.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:26:17 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Mike Travis <travis@....com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...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
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
>> And how much is that, especially on *small* systems?
>
> i386?
>
> i386 uses 4K mappings. There are just a few cpus supported, there is scarcity of
> ZONE_NORMAL memory so the per cpu areas really cannot get that big. See the
> cpu_alloc patchsets for i386.
i386 is fundamentally resource constrained. However x86_32 should support a
strict superset of the machines the x86_64 kernel supports.
Because it is resource constrained in the lowmem zone you should not
be able to bring up all of the cpus on a huge cpu box. But you should still
be able to boot and run the kernel. So for percpu data we have effectively
same size constraints.
Eric
--
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