From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rusty Russell Subject: Re: [patch] generic-ipi: remove kmalloc, cleanup Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:46:54 +1030 Message-ID: <200902161746.55058.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> References: <200902140746.45320.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> <1234568885.4831.14.camel@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ingo Molnar , Frederic Weisbecker , Thomas Gleixner , LKML , "rt-users" , Steven Rostedt , Carsten Emde , Clark Williams To: Peter Zijlstra Return-path: Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.10.76.45]:41603 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754815AbZBPHRD (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2009 02:17:03 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1234568885.4831.14.camel@laptop> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Saturday 14 February 2009 10:18:05 Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sat, 2009-02-14 at 07:46 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > > I'd be fascinated to see perf numbers once you kill the kmalloc. Because > > this patch will add num_possible_cpus * NR_CPUS/8 bytes to the kernel which > > is something we're trying to avoid unless necessary. > > You're free to make it a pointer and do node affine allocations from an > init section of choice and add a hotplug handler. > > But I'm not quite sure how perf is affected by size overhead on > ridiculous configs. No, I meant "can you actually measure the perf win of this patch?". If you did so, I missed it? But if this patch is worthwhile, the right way to do this is make it a cpumask_var_t, and do the alloc_cpumask_var_node() in that init routine. Thanks, Rusty.