[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49A406EB.8080509@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:40:43 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: rusty@...tcorp.com.au, tglx@...utronix.de, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com, jeremy@...p.org,
cpw@....com, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, ink@...assic.park.msu.ru
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET x86/core/percpu] improve the first percpu chunk allocation
Hello, Ingo.
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>>> and i think that abstraction is wrong.
>> No, it's not wrong. It simply is irrelevant - it's congruent
>> vs. contiguos and all that we need is congruent. Contiguous
>> of course achieves congruent but it doesn't make any
>> difference for this purpose.
>
> Well, as long as we can go up in unit size to 2MB (on 64-bit
> x86) i'm fine with that model.
Yeap, it defintely can.
> There's no granularity artifacts, right? pcpu_populate_chunk()
> intelligently only populates pages on an as-needed basis, so
> extending the percpu areas with a 2MB unit does not trigger
> nr_cpus*2MB allocations straight away.
Yeap, it doesn't although reclamation is done per-chunk currently.
> The code looks very clean and if we can agree on the SMP/NUMA
> symmetry and the dynamic-ptr optimizations that it allows, plus
> if you can up the unit size to 2MB on 64-bit x86, i'm a happy
> camper and will pull it.
Sounds good. Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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