[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090224151512.GA12438@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:15:12 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
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
* Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> > It's still about this restriction:
> >
> > + /*
> > + * If large page isn't supported, there's no benefit in doing
> > + * this. Also, embedding allocation doesn't play well with
> > + * NUMA.
> > + */
> > + if (!cpu_has_pse || pcpu_need_numa())
> > + return -EINVAL;
> >
> > This is what makes no sense (why force the static percpu area
> > into 4K mappings on NUMA).
>
> No, the first allocator tried is remap allocator which will do
> the 2MB remapping thing if NUMA. If not, it gives its way to
> embedding allocator which only kicks in for pse && !numa. The
> 4k thing is just the last resort. We might as well kill it
> and make it
>
> if (numa)
> do remap
> else
> do embed
> panic if failed
>
> The 4k thing is the final fallback for cases where pse isn't
> supported.
ah, ok :-) Then i was confused by that and wanted to see
something implemented that ... was already there :)
Ingo
--
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