[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B7D9ABB.7020806@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:53:31 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 34/35] x86: use num_processors for possible cpus
On 02/18/2010 11:48 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>>
>> Yes, and I have repeatedly requested that we allocate the memory on the
>> first up of a disabled CPU rather than eagerly, but in *most*
>> configurations the amount is relatively small.
>
> The size of the static per cpu segment is likely around 30k and you will
> likely add another 30k in dynamic allocations.
>
> As I have also repeatedly stated: Dynamic percpu data allocation when
> onlining / offlining processors will complicate locking (cannot rely on
> percpu be present anymore) and introduce numerous additional
> hotplug notifiers into subsystems.
I did state explicitly "on first up". Trying to free it would be
insane. There are a couple of subsystems which are percpu memory
pigs... so far it's not clear any of them actually matters in a
production kernel. 60K * 16 phantom processors is still ~ 1 MB, which
probably isn't enough to worry about but isn't great.
-hpa
--
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