[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4999F693.5000105@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:28:19 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
CC: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>, cpw@....com
Subject: Re: #tj-percpu has been rebased
Rusty Russell wrote:
>>
>> All in all I think a dedicated virtual zone per CPU as opposed to
>> interleaving them seems to make more sense. Even with 4096 CPUs and
>> reserving, say, 256 MB per CPU it's not that much address space in the
>> context of a 47-bit kernel space. On 32 bits I don't think anything but
>> the most trivial amount of percpu space is going to fly no matter what.
>
> It's the TLB cost which I really don't want to pay; num_possible_cpus()
> 4096 non-NUMA is a little silly (currently impossible).
>
> I'm happy to limit per-cpu allocations to pagesize, then you only need to
> find num_possible_cpus() contig pages, and if you can't, you fall back to
> vmalloc.
>
num_possible_cpus() can be very large though, so in many cases the
likelihood of finding that many pages approach zero. Furthermore,
num_possible_cpus() may be quite a bit larger than the actual number of
CPUs in the system.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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