From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756196AbZBSLHq (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Feb 2009 06:07:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751329AbZBSLHg (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Feb 2009 06:07:36 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:55402 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751898AbZBSLHf (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Feb 2009 06:07:35 -0500 Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:07:18 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Tejun Heo Cc: rusty@rustcorp.com.au, tglx@linutronix.de, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, jeremy@goop.org, cpw@sgi.com Subject: Re: [PATCHSET x86/core/percpu] implement dynamic percpu allocator Message-ID: <20090219110718.GK2354@elte.hu> References: <1234958676-27618-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <499CA834.4080208@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <499CA834.4080208@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Tejun Heo wrote: > Tejun Heo wrote: > > One trick we can do is to reserve the initial chunk in non-vmalloc > > area so that at least the static cpu ones and whatever gets > > allocated in the first chunk is served by regular large page > > mappings. Given that those are most frequent visited ones, this > > could be a nice compromise - no noticeable penalty for usual cases > > yet allowing scalability for unusual cases. If this is something > > which can be agreed on, I'll pursue this. > > I've given more thought to this and it actually will solve > most of issues for non-NUMA but it can't be done for NUMA. > Any better ideas? It could be allocated via NUMA-aware bootmem allocations. Ingo