[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20081119.151754.44649102.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:17:54 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: rusty@...tcorp.com.au
Cc: dada1@...mosbay.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: make ip_rt_acct a normal percpu var
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:43:21 +1030
> On Thursday 20 November 2008 08:50:23 David Miller wrote:
> > Do you really need this to forward some work you are doing? If not
> > can we just let sleeping dogs lie on this one? :)
>
> Yes, I have patches to convert the dynamic percpu data to use the same
> mechanism as static percpu data. Unfortunately we don't have a mechanism for
> enlarging the percpu region (which is why this wasn't done earlier), so we use
> a heuristic to figure out how much extra percpu region to allocate at boot.
>
> And 4k makes this one of the Big Pigs in dynamic per-cpu allocations.
>
> (SNMP mibs are even worse, but that's a separate debate...)
We make a big fuss (rightly) about a few hundred bytes and this sucker
is FOUR KILOBYTES.
Really for the time being I'd rather see this converted to a
num_possible_cpus() sized normal kzalloc() and direct indexing. I
don't want the networking to bloat up the main kernel image by so
much.
> I can try to implement a bss-like DEFINE_PER_CPU_ZERO(), but it seems silly to
> talk about tight boot loader size restrictions for SMP kernels.
SMP these days is candy. And sparc is what has the bootloader restrictions
btw :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists