[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200902181741.13736.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:41:13 +1030
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
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
On Wednesday 18 February 2009 17:10:20 H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Rusty Russell wrote:
> >>>
> >> 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.
> >
> > Sure, so we end up at vmalloc. No worse, but simpler and much better if we
> > *can* do it.
>
> If the likelihood is near zero, then you're wasting opportunities to do
> it better. If we have compact per-cpu virtual areas then we can use
> large pages if we know we'll have large percpu areas.
You're right; we'd need that defrag wonderness people keep speculating about.
What finally convinced me is that the per-cpu chunks have to be at least the
size of the .data.percpu section (24k here). 7*num_possible_cpus() is even
worse.
Thanks,
Rusty.
--
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