From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@scalex86.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>,
Martin Mares <mj@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>,
bjornw@axis.com, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com,
benedict.gaster@superh.com, lethal@linux-sh.org,
Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
Marc Gauthier <marc@tensilica.com>,
Joe Taylor <joe@tensilica.com>,
David Mosberger-Tang <davidm@hpl.hp.com>,
rth@twiddle.net, spyro@f2s.com, starvik@axis.com,
tony.luck@intel.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
ralf@linux-mips.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org,
grundler@parisc-linux.org, parisc-linux@parisc-linux.org,
linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org, linux390@de.ibm.com,
davem@davemloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/05] robust per_cpu allocation for modules
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 22:02:38 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060417220238.GD3945@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0604170953390.29732@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 09:55:02AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > If I'm following you correctly, this adds another dependent load
> > to a per-CPU data access, and from memory that isn't node-affine.
>
> I am also concerned about that. Kiran has a patch to avoid allocpercpu
> having to go through one level of indirection that I guess would no
> longer work with this scheme.
The alloc_percpu reimplementation would work regardless of changes to
static per-cpu areas. But, any extra indirection as was proposed initially
is bad IMHO.
>
> > If so, I think people with SMP and NUMA kernels would care more
> > about performance and scalability than the few k of memory this
> > saves.
>
> Right.
Me too :)
Kiran
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@scalex86.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>,
Martin Mares <mj@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>,
bjornw@axis.com, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com,
benedict.gaster@superh.com, lethal@linux-sh.org,
Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
Marc Gauthier <marc@tensilica.com>,
Joe Taylor <joe@tensilica.com>,
David Mosberger-Tang <davidm@hpl.hp.com>,
rth@twiddle.net, spyro@f2s.com, starvik@axis.com,
tony.luck@intel.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
ralf@linux-mips.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org,
grundler@parisc-linux.org, parisc-linux@parisc-linux.org,
linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org, linux390@de.ibm.com,
davem@davemloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/05] robust per_cpu allocation for modules
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:02:38 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060417220238.GD3945@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0604170953390.29732@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 09:55:02AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > If I'm following you correctly, this adds another dependent load
> > to a per-CPU data access, and from memory that isn't node-affine.
>
> I am also concerned about that. Kiran has a patch to avoid allocpercpu
> having to go through one level of indirection that I guess would no
> longer work with this scheme.
The alloc_percpu reimplementation would work regardless of changes to
static per-cpu areas. But, any extra indirection as was proposed initially
is bad IMHO.
>
> > If so, I think people with SMP and NUMA kernels would care more
> > about performance and scalability than the few k of memory this
> > saves.
>
> Right.
Me too :)
Kiran
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@scalex86.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
linux-mips@linux-mips.org,
David Mosberger-Tang <davidm@hpl.hp.com>,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
Martin Mares <mj@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>,
spyro@f2s.com, Joe Taylor <joe@tensilica.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>,
linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org,
benedict.gaster@superh.com, bjornw@axis.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
grundler@parisc-linux.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
starvik@axis.com, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
rth@twiddle.net, Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
tony.luck@intel.com, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
ralf@linux-mips.org, Marc Gauthier <marc@tensilica.com>,
lethal@linux-sh.org, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, linux390@de.ibm.com,
davem@davemloft.net, parisc-linux@parisc-linux.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/05] robust per_cpu allocation for modules
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:02:38 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060417220238.GD3945@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0604170953390.29732@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 09:55:02AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > If I'm following you correctly, this adds another dependent load
> > to a per-CPU data access, and from memory that isn't node-affine.
>
> I am also concerned about that. Kiran has a patch to avoid allocpercpu
> having to go through one level of indirection that I guess would no
> longer work with this scheme.
The alloc_percpu reimplementation would work regardless of changes to
static per-cpu areas. But, any extra indirection as was proposed initially
is bad IMHO.
>
> > If so, I think people with SMP and NUMA kernels would care more
> > about performance and scalability than the few k of memory this
> > saves.
>
> Right.
Me too :)
Kiran
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-04-17 22:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 97+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-04-14 21:18 [PATCH 00/05] robust per_cpu allocation for modules Steven Rostedt
2006-04-14 21:18 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-14 21:18 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-14 21:18 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-14 22:06 ` Andrew Morton
2006-04-14 22:06 ` Andrew Morton
2006-04-14 22:06 ` Andrew Morton
2006-04-14 22:12 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-14 22:12 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-14 22:12 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-14 22:12 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-04-14 22:12 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-04-14 22:12 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-04-14 22:12 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-04-14 22:19 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-15 3:10 ` [PATCH 00/08] robust per_cpu allocation for modules - V2 Steven Rostedt
2006-04-15 3:10 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-15 3:10 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-15 5:32 ` [PATCH 00/05] robust per_cpu allocation for modules Nick Piggin
2006-04-15 5:32 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-15 5:32 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-15 20:17 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-15 20:17 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-15 20:17 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-16 2:47 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-16 2:47 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-16 2:47 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-16 3:53 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-16 3:53 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-16 3:53 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-16 7:02 ` Paul Mackerras
2006-04-16 7:02 ` Paul Mackerras
2006-04-16 7:02 ` Paul Mackerras
2006-04-16 13:40 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-16 13:40 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-16 13:40 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-16 13:40 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-16 14:03 ` Sam Ravnborg
2006-04-16 14:03 ` Sam Ravnborg
2006-04-16 14:03 ` Sam Ravnborg
2006-04-16 15:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2006-04-16 15:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2006-04-16 15:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2006-04-16 18:03 ` Tony Luck
2006-04-16 18:03 ` Tony Luck
2006-04-16 18:03 ` Tony Luck
2006-04-17 0:45 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-17 0:45 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-17 0:45 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-17 2:07 ` Arnd Bergmann
2006-04-17 2:07 ` Arnd Bergmann
2006-04-17 2:07 ` Arnd Bergmann
2006-04-17 2:17 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-17 2:17 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-17 2:17 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-17 20:06 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2006-04-17 20:06 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2006-04-17 20:06 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2006-04-17 6:47 ` Rusty Russell
2006-04-17 6:47 ` Rusty Russell
2006-04-17 6:47 ` Rusty Russell
2006-04-17 11:33 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-17 11:33 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-17 11:33 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-16 7:06 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-16 7:06 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-16 7:06 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-16 16:06 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-16 16:06 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-16 16:06 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-17 17:10 ` Andi Kleen
2006-04-17 17:10 ` Andi Kleen
2006-04-17 17:10 ` Andi Kleen
2006-04-17 16:55 ` Christoph Lameter
2006-04-17 16:55 ` Christoph Lameter
2006-04-17 16:55 ` Christoph Lameter
2006-04-17 22:02 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai [this message]
2006-04-17 22:02 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2006-04-17 22:02 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2006-04-17 23:44 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-17 23:44 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-17 23:44 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-17 23:48 ` Christoph Lameter
2006-04-17 23:48 ` Christoph Lameter
2006-04-17 23:48 ` Christoph Lameter
2006-04-18 1:51 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-18 1:51 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-18 1:51 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-18 6:42 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-18 6:42 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-18 6:42 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-18 12:47 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-18 12:47 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-18 12:47 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-16 6:35 ` Paul Mackerras
2006-04-16 6:35 ` Paul Mackerras
2006-04-16 6:35 ` Paul Mackerras
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20060417220238.GD3945@localhost.localdomain \
--to=kiran@scalex86.org \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=benedict.gaster@superh.com \
--cc=bjornw@axis.com \
--cc=chris@zankel.net \
--cc=clameter@sgi.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=davidm@hpl.hp.com \
--cc=grundler@parisc-linux.org \
--cc=joe@tensilica.com \
--cc=lethal@linux-sh.org \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mips@linux-mips.org \
--cc=linux390@de.ibm.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=marc@tensilica.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=mj@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=parisc-linux@parisc-linux.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=ralf@linux-mips.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=rth@twiddle.net \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=spyro@f2s.com \
--cc=starvik@axis.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.