All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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>

  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.