[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <010001693b404440-248fa987-624c-4587-940b-56e2ed4226d9-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 21:54:21 +0000
From: Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Barret Rhoden <brho@...gle.com>
cc: Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>, Eial Czerwacki <eial@...lemp.com>,
tj@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Shai Fultheim <shai@...lemp.com>,
Oren Twaig <oren@...lemp.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu/module resevation: change resevation size iff
X86_VSMP is set
On Fri, 1 Mar 2019, Barret Rhoden wrote:
> I'm not familiar with VSMP - how bad is it to use L1 cache alignment instead
> of 4K page alignment? Maybe some structures can use the smaller alignment?
> Or maybe have VSMP require SRCU-using modules to be built-in?
It is very expensive. VMSP exchanges 4K segments via RDMA between servers
to build a large address space and run a kernel in the large address
space. Using smaller segments can cause a lot of
"cacheline" bouncing (meaning transfers of 4K segments back and forth
between servers).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists