[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100113235214.GG24818@basil.fritz.box>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 00:52:14 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"ananth@...ibm.com" <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 5/5] x86: use dmi check to treat disabled cpus as
hotplug cpus.
> I just built an allyesconfig kernel, and it has 1904K of percpu data.
> 1791K of that is in per_cpu__cpu_lock_stats. So everything else is
Ok so we need to fix lock stats, I'll put it on my todo list.
> ~113K. Still. We should not be restricted from doing legitimately
> large percpu allocations because of ghost cpus (and Tejun knows my
> position on this), but it doesn't sound like the house is burning, either.
I think it's legitimate to require explicit allocation on
add/remove event for anything large.
Static per cpu is really only for "lazy users" anyways.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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