Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
>
> It's a tradeoff, but I think it's worth it for a kmalloc_percpu which
> is fast, space-efficient and numa-aware, since the code is needed
> anyway.
I don't beleive that kmalloc_percpu() itself needs to be fast, as you say.
The code is _not_ NUMA-aware. Is it?
> How about a compromise like the following (scaled with mem)?
> Untested, but you get the idea...
> + /* Plenty of memory? 1GB = 64k per-cpu. */
> + pool_size = max(((long long)num_physpages << PAGE_SHIFT) / 16384,
> + (long long)pool_size);
On 64GB 32-way that's 128MB of lowmem. Unpopular. I'd settle for a __setup
thingy here, and a printk when the memory runs out.
btw, what's wrong with leaving kmalloc_percpu() as-is, and only using this
allocator for DEFINE_PERCPU()?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 07 2003 - 22:00:25 EST