[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100114092515.GG12241@basil.fritz.box>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 10:25:15 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.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.
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 02:49:18PM -0800, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 14:36 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 01/13/2010 02:29 PM, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Well, that *is* working around broken code, in this case the broken code
> > >> is the percpu allocation strategy.
> > >
> > > Andi, Recently percpu folks changed the per-cpu static first chunk to
> > > PMD SIZE right. I think that is what causing all this issue.
> > >
> >
> > Please don't tell me we're allocating 2 MB per CPU and throwing away
> > most of it...
>
> Looking at the percpu code, they do seem to free the unused memory in
> that hole.
I took a look at alloc_percpu() at least and it seems to always
allocate for all possible cpus.
Unfortunately we don't have a nice accounting mechanism for it in /proc,
perhaps we should. So it's unclear right now if that is a problem or not.
-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