From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <christoph@lameter.com>
Cc: "Martin J. Bligh" <Martin.Bligh@us.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, shai@scalex86.org
Subject: Re: API changes to the slab allocator for NUMA memory allocation
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 05:56:48 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <424A3FA0.9030403@colorfullife.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0503292126050.32140@server.graphe.net>
Christoph Lameter wrote:
>The patch makes the following function calls available to allocate memory on
>a specific node without changing the basic operation of the slab
>allocator:
>
> kmem_cache_alloc_node(kmem_cache_t *cachep, unsigned int flags, int node);
> kmalloc_node(size_t size, unsigned int flags, int node);
>
>
>
I intentionally didn't add a kmalloc_node() function:
kmalloc is just a wrapper around
kmem_find_general_cachep+kmem_cache_alloc. It exists only for
efficiency. The _node functions are slow, thus a wrapper is IMHO not
required. kmalloc_node(size,flags,node) is identical to
kmem_cache_alloc(kmem_find_general_cachep(size,flags),flags,node). What
about making kmem_find_general_cachep() public again and removing
kmalloc_node()?
And I don't know if it's a good idea to make kmalloc() a special case of
kmalloc_node(): It adds one parameter to every kmalloc call and
kmem_cache_alloc call, virtually everyone passes -1. Does it increase
the .text size?
--
Manfred
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <christoph@lameter.com>
Cc: "Martin J. Bligh" <Martin.Bligh@us.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, shai@scalex86.org
Subject: Re: API changes to the slab allocator for NUMA memory allocation
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:56:48 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <424A3FA0.9030403@colorfullife.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0503292126050.32140@server.graphe.net>
Christoph Lameter wrote:
>The patch makes the following function calls available to allocate memory on
>a specific node without changing the basic operation of the slab
>allocator:
>
> kmem_cache_alloc_node(kmem_cache_t *cachep, unsigned int flags, int node);
> kmalloc_node(size_t size, unsigned int flags, int node);
>
>
>
I intentionally didn't add a kmalloc_node() function:
kmalloc is just a wrapper around
kmem_find_general_cachep+kmem_cache_alloc. It exists only for
efficiency. The _node functions are slow, thus a wrapper is IMHO not
required. kmalloc_node(size,flags,node) is identical to
kmem_cache_alloc(kmem_find_general_cachep(size,flags),flags,node). What
about making kmem_find_general_cachep() public again and removing
kmalloc_node()?
And I don't know if it's a good idea to make kmalloc() a special case of
kmalloc_node(): It adds one parameter to every kmalloc call and
kmem_cache_alloc call, virtually everyone passes -1. Does it increase
the .text size?
--
Manfred
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <christoph@lameter.com>
Cc: "Martin J. Bligh" <Martin.Bligh@us.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, shai@scalex86.org
Subject: Re: API changes to the slab allocator for NUMA memory allocation
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:56:48 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <424A3FA0.9030403@colorfullife.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0503292126050.32140@server.graphe.net>
Christoph Lameter wrote:
>The patch makes the following function calls available to allocate memory on
>a specific node without changing the basic operation of the slab
>allocator:
>
> kmem_cache_alloc_node(kmem_cache_t *cachep, unsigned int flags, int node);
> kmalloc_node(size_t size, unsigned int flags, int node);
>
>
>
I intentionally didn't add a kmalloc_node() function:
kmalloc is just a wrapper around
kmem_find_general_cachep+kmem_cache_alloc. It exists only for
efficiency. The _node functions are slow, thus a wrapper is IMHO not
required. kmalloc_node(size,flags,node) is identical to
kmem_cache_alloc(kmem_find_general_cachep(size,flags),flags,node). What
about making kmem_find_general_cachep() public again and removing
kmalloc_node()?
And I don't know if it's a good idea to make kmalloc() a special case of
kmalloc_node(): It adds one parameter to every kmalloc call and
kmem_cache_alloc call, virtually everyone passes -1. Does it increase
the .text size?
--
Manfred
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-03-30 5:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20050315204110.6664771d.akpm@osdl.org>
2005-03-16 18:34 ` Fw: [PATCH] NUMA Slab Allocator Manfred Spraul
2005-03-16 18:34 ` Manfred Spraul
2005-03-16 18:54 ` Martin J. Bligh
2005-03-16 18:54 ` Martin J. Bligh
2005-03-16 19:09 ` Manfred Spraul
2005-03-16 19:09 ` Manfred Spraul
2005-03-30 5:30 ` API changes to the slab allocator for NUMA memory allocation Christoph Lameter
2005-03-30 5:30 ` Christoph Lameter
2005-03-30 5:30 ` Christoph Lameter
2005-03-30 5:56 ` Manfred Spraul [this message]
2005-03-30 5:56 ` Manfred Spraul
2005-03-30 5:56 ` Manfred Spraul
2005-03-30 15:55 ` Christoph Lameter
2005-03-30 15:55 ` Christoph Lameter
2005-03-30 15:55 ` Christoph Lameter
2005-03-30 17:55 ` Manfred Spraul
2005-03-30 17:55 ` Manfred Spraul
2005-03-30 18:13 ` Christoph Lameter
2005-03-30 18:13 ` Christoph Lameter
2005-03-30 18:13 ` Christoph Lameter
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=424A3FA0.9030403@colorfullife.com \
--to=manfred@colorfullife.com \
--cc=Martin.Bligh@us.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=christoph@lameter.com \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=shai@scalex86.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.