[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0902031159300.26129@qirst.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 12:08:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SLUB: revert direct page allocator pass through
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > A bitmap could be
> > used to avoid queuing and may even allow fully concurrent allocations
> > without locks. Use a counter to check watermarks once in a while.
>
> Bitmap? Involving locks or atomic operations, right?
Yes one could use a atomic operation there. The bitmap would be attached
to MAX_ORDER unit and if MAX_ORDER units would be assigned to a cpu for
allocation then the contention would be limited. The only contention would
> The page refcounting layer lives on top of the buddy/queueing/etc layers,
> so the same technique works no matter what the underlying allocator looks
> like.
>
> The only reason I didn't merge it is that it added another branch. I wanted
> to rework the APIs a little bit to avoid it.
Sounds good.
--
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