On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 06:11:53PM +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
> > Doesn't your allocator increase chances of cache conflict on the same
> > cpu ?
> >
>
> You mean by increasing the footprint and the chance of eviction ? It
> is a compromise. Or you would face NR_CPUS bloat and non-NUMA-node-local
> accesses for all CPUs outside the NUMA node where your NR_CPUS array
> is located.
What do you base the trade-off decision on?
>
> Thanks
> --
> Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com> http://lse.sourceforge.net
> Linux Technology Center, IBM Software Lab, Bangalore, India.
> -
> 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/
-- --------------------------------------------------------- Victor Yodaiken Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company. www.fsmlabs.com www.rtlinux.com 1+ 505 838 9109- 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 : Sat Dec 07 2002 - 22:00:22 EST