Re: regarding the x86_64 zero-based percpu patches

[Rusty Russell]

On Tuesday 13 January 2009 14:37:38 Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> It isn't incompatible with a per-cpu virtual mapping.  It allows the
> possibility of each cpu reusing the same chunk of virtual address
> space for per cpu memory.

This can be done (IA64 does it today), but it's not generically useful.  You can use it to frob a few simple values, but it means you can't store any pointers, and that just doesn't fly in general kernel code.

> I think it would be nice if the percpu area could grow and would not be
> a fixed size at boot time, I'm not particularly convinced it has to.

I used to be convinced it had to grow, but Christoph showed otherwise.  Nonetheless, it's an annoying restriction which is going to bite us in the ass repeatedly as coders use per_cpu on random sizes.

Rusty.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/