From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/12]: sparc64: Use new dynamic per-cpu allocator.
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 11:48:12 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49DDE07C.8050101@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090408.223758.81953207.davem@davemloft.net>
Hello,
The percpu part looks good to me. Just one question below.
David Miller wrote:
> void __init setup_per_cpu_areas(void)
> {
> - unsigned long size, i, nr_possible_cpus = num_possible_cpus();
> - char *ptr;
> + size_t dyn_size, static_size = __per_cpu_end - __per_cpu_start;
> + static struct vm_struct vm;
> + unsigned long delta, cpu;
> + size_t pcpu_unit_size;
> + size_t ptrs_size;
> +
> + pcpur_size = PFN_ALIGN(static_size + PERCPU_MODULE_RESERVE +
> + PERCPU_DYNAMIC_RESERVE);
> + dyn_size = pcpur_size - static_size - PERCPU_MODULE_RESERVE;
Isn't it better to use embedding allocator for !NUMA cases (one less
TLB entry usage for each CPU)?
Thanks.
--
tejun
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/12]: sparc64: Use new dynamic per-cpu allocator.
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 04:48:12 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49DDE07C.8050101@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090408.223758.81953207.davem@davemloft.net>
Hello,
The percpu part looks good to me. Just one question below.
David Miller wrote:
> void __init setup_per_cpu_areas(void)
> {
> - unsigned long size, i, nr_possible_cpus = num_possible_cpus();
> - char *ptr;
> + size_t dyn_size, static_size = __per_cpu_end - __per_cpu_start;
> + static struct vm_struct vm;
> + unsigned long delta, cpu;
> + size_t pcpu_unit_size;
> + size_t ptrs_size;
> +
> + pcpur_size = PFN_ALIGN(static_size + PERCPU_MODULE_RESERVE +
> + PERCPU_DYNAMIC_RESERVE);
> + dyn_size = pcpur_size - static_size - PERCPU_MODULE_RESERVE;
Isn't it better to use embedding allocator for !NUMA cases (one less
TLB entry usage for each CPU)?
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-09 11:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-09 5:37 [PATCH 12/12]: sparc64: Use new dynamic per-cpu allocator David Miller
2009-04-09 5:37 ` David Miller
2009-04-09 6:44 ` Sam Ravnborg
2009-04-09 6:44 ` Sam Ravnborg
2009-04-09 11:48 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2009-04-09 11:48 ` Tejun Heo
2009-04-09 21:29 ` David Miller
2009-04-09 21:29 ` David Miller
2009-04-09 21:45 ` Tejun Heo
2009-04-09 21:45 ` Tejun Heo
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=49DDE07C.8050101@kernel.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.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.