From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rusty Russell Subject: Re: linux-next: cpu_alloc tree Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 22:36:19 +1030 Message-ID: <200812172236.20226.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> References: <20081216170521.8453f7e4.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.10.76.45]:50280 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751510AbYLQMGY (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Dec 2008 07:06:24 -0500 In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 17 December 2008 01:21:26 Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Tue, 16 Dec 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > The cpu_alloc tree has not been included in linux-next since Nov 21. Have > > your discussions with Rusty come to any conclusions? Should I remove > > this tree permanently or will it be updated? > > I thought Rusty would be doing something. If not then I will bring things > up to snuff. Thanks for the prod, I was distracted by cpumasks and local_t, the latter tangentially related. The current patches work, but introduce new limits on eg. number of network devices. Those have to be diverted to a lesser percpu allocator until we get dynamic percpu sizing. I do not want to block this work on that: you've shown how useful even small allocs can be in key places. Expect another set of patches this week. Thanks, Rusty.