From: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>
To: 'Steven Rostedt' <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>,
Martin Mares <mj@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>,
bjornw@axis.com, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com,
benedict.gaster@superh.com, lethal@linux-sh.org,
Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
Marc Gauthier <marc@tensilica.com>,
Joe Taylor <joe@tensilica.com>,
David Mosberger-Tang <davidm@hpl.hp.com>,
rth@twiddle.net, spyro@f2s.com, starvik@axis.com, "Luck,
Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, ralf@linux-mips.org,
linux-mips@linux-mips.org, grundler@parisc-linux.org,
parisc-linux@parisc-linux.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org,
paulus@samba.org, linux390@de.ibm.com, lethal@linux-sh.org,
davem@davemloft.net, chris@zankel.net
Subject: RE: [PATCH 00/05] robust per_cpu allocation for modules
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 22:12:52 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4t16i2$ma94t@orsmga001.jf.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1145049535.1336.128.camel@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <1145049535.1336.128.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Steven Rostedt wrote on Friday, April 14, 2006 2:19 PM
> So the current solution has two flaws:
> 1. not robust. If we someday add more modules that together take up
> more than 14K, we need to manually update the PERCPU_ENOUGH_ROOM.
> 2. waste of memory. We have 14K of memory wasted per CPU. Remember
> a 64 processor machine would be wasting 896K of memory!
If someone who has the money to own a 64-process machine, 896K of memory
is pocket change ;-)
- Ken
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>
To: "'Steven Rostedt'" <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
"LKML" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@osdl.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>, "Andi Kleen" <ak@suse.de>,
"Martin Mares" <mj@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>, <bjornw@axis.com>,
<schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>, <benedict.gaster@superh.com>,
<lethal@linux-sh.org>, "Chris Zankel" <chris@zankel.net>,
"Marc Gauthier" <marc@tensilica.com>,
"Joe Taylor" <joe@tensilica.com>,
"David Mosberger-Tang" <davidm@hpl.hp.com>, <rth@twiddle.net>,
<spyro@f2s.com>, <starvik@axis.com>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>, <linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org>,
<ralf@linux-mips.org>, <linux-mips@linux-mips.org>,
<grundler@parisc-linux.org>, <parisc-linux@parisc-linux.org>,
<linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>, <paulus@samba.org>,
<linux390@de.ibm.com>, <lethal@linux-sh.org>,
<davem@davemloft.net>, <chris@zankel.net>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 00/05] robust per_cpu allocation for modules
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 15:12:52 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4t16i2$ma94t@orsmga001.jf.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1145049535.1336.128.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Steven Rostedt wrote on Friday, April 14, 2006 2:19 PM
> So the current solution has two flaws:
> 1. not robust. If we someday add more modules that together take up
> more than 14K, we need to manually update the PERCPU_ENOUGH_ROOM.
> 2. waste of memory. We have 14K of memory wasted per CPU. Remember
> a 64 processor machine would be wasting 896K of memory!
If someone who has the money to own a 64-process machine, 896K of memory
is pocket change ;-)
- Ken
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>
To: 'Steven Rostedt' <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>,
Martin Mares <mj@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>,
bjornw@axis.com, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com,
benedict.gaster@superh.com, lethal@linux-sh.org,
Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
Marc Gauthier <marc@tensilica.com>,
Joe Taylor <joe@tensilica.com>,
David Mosberger-Tang <davidm@hpl.hp.com>,
rth@twiddle.net, spyro@f2s.com, starvik@axis.com, "Luck,
Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, ralf@linux-mips.org,
linux-mips@linux-mips.org, grundler@parisc-linux.org,
parisc-linux@parisc-linux.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org,
paulus@samba.org, linux390@de.ibm.comlethal@linux-sh.org,
davem@davemloft.netchris@zankel.net
Subject: RE: [PATCH 00/05] robust per_cpu allocation for modules
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 15:12:52 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4t16i2$ma94t@orsmga001.jf.intel.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20060414221252.3KDWq5o6KJteDTBSBD5PFafPVMt5er6QgDvTi5ljrT4@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1145049535.1336.128.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Steven Rostedt wrote on Friday, April 14, 2006 2:19 PM
> So the current solution has two flaws:
> 1. not robust. If we someday add more modules that together take up
> more than 14K, we need to manually update the PERCPU_ENOUGH_ROOM.
> 2. waste of memory. We have 14K of memory wasted per CPU. Remember
> a 64 processor machine would be wasting 896K of memory!
If someone who has the money to own a 64-process machine, 896K of memory
is pocket change ;-)
- Ken
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>
To: "'Steven Rostedt'" <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
"LKML" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org,
David Mosberger-Tang <davidm@hpl.hp.com>,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
Martin Mares <mj@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>,
spyro@f2s.com, Joe Taylor <joe@tensilica.com>,
linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org,
benedict.gaster@superh.com, bjornw@axis.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
grundler@parisc-linux.org, starvik@axis.com,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
rth@twiddle.net, chris@zankel.net, "Luck,
Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>,
ralf@linux-mips.org, Marc Gauthier <marc@tensilica.com>,
lethal@linux-sh.org, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, linux390@de.ibm.com,
davem@davemloft.net, parisc-linux@parisc-linux.org
Subject: RE: [PATCH 00/05] robust per_cpu allocation for modules
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 15:12:52 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4t16i2$ma94t@orsmga001.jf.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1145049535.1336.128.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Steven Rostedt wrote on Friday, April 14, 2006 2:19 PM
> So the current solution has two flaws:
> 1. not robust. If we someday add more modules that together take up
> more than 14K, we need to manually update the PERCPU_ENOUGH_ROOM.
> 2. waste of memory. We have 14K of memory wasted per CPU. Remember
> a 64 processor machine would be wasting 896K of memory!
If someone who has the money to own a 64-process machine, 896K of memory
is pocket change ;-)
- Ken
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-04-14 22:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 97+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-04-14 21:18 [PATCH 00/05] robust per_cpu allocation for modules Steven Rostedt
2006-04-14 21:18 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-14 21:18 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-14 21:18 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-14 22:06 ` Andrew Morton
2006-04-14 22:06 ` Andrew Morton
2006-04-14 22:06 ` Andrew Morton
2006-04-14 22:12 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-14 22:12 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-14 22:12 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-14 22:12 ` Chen, Kenneth W [this message]
2006-04-14 22:12 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-04-14 22:12 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-04-14 22:12 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-04-14 22:19 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-15 3:10 ` [PATCH 00/08] robust per_cpu allocation for modules - V2 Steven Rostedt
2006-04-15 3:10 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-15 3:10 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-15 5:32 ` [PATCH 00/05] robust per_cpu allocation for modules Nick Piggin
2006-04-15 5:32 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-15 5:32 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-15 20:17 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-15 20:17 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-15 20:17 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-16 2:47 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-16 2:47 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-16 2:47 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-16 3:53 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-16 3:53 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-16 3:53 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-16 7:02 ` Paul Mackerras
2006-04-16 7:02 ` Paul Mackerras
2006-04-16 7:02 ` Paul Mackerras
2006-04-16 13:40 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-16 13:40 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-16 13:40 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-16 13:40 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-16 14:03 ` Sam Ravnborg
2006-04-16 14:03 ` Sam Ravnborg
2006-04-16 14:03 ` Sam Ravnborg
2006-04-16 15:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2006-04-16 15:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2006-04-16 15:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2006-04-16 18:03 ` Tony Luck
2006-04-16 18:03 ` Tony Luck
2006-04-16 18:03 ` Tony Luck
2006-04-17 0:45 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-17 0:45 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-17 0:45 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-17 2:07 ` Arnd Bergmann
2006-04-17 2:07 ` Arnd Bergmann
2006-04-17 2:07 ` Arnd Bergmann
2006-04-17 2:17 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-17 2:17 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-17 2:17 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-17 20:06 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2006-04-17 20:06 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2006-04-17 20:06 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2006-04-17 6:47 ` Rusty Russell
2006-04-17 6:47 ` Rusty Russell
2006-04-17 6:47 ` Rusty Russell
2006-04-17 11:33 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-17 11:33 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-17 11:33 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-16 7:06 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-16 7:06 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-16 7:06 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-16 16:06 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-16 16:06 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-16 16:06 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-17 17:10 ` Andi Kleen
2006-04-17 17:10 ` Andi Kleen
2006-04-17 17:10 ` Andi Kleen
2006-04-17 16:55 ` Christoph Lameter
2006-04-17 16:55 ` Christoph Lameter
2006-04-17 16:55 ` Christoph Lameter
2006-04-17 22:02 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2006-04-17 22:02 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2006-04-17 22:02 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2006-04-17 23:44 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-17 23:44 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-17 23:44 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-17 23:48 ` Christoph Lameter
2006-04-17 23:48 ` Christoph Lameter
2006-04-17 23:48 ` Christoph Lameter
2006-04-18 1:51 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-18 1:51 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-18 1:51 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-18 6:42 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-18 6:42 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-18 6:42 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-18 12:47 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-18 12:47 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-18 12:47 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-16 6:35 ` Paul Mackerras
2006-04-16 6:35 ` Paul Mackerras
2006-04-16 6:35 ` Paul Mackerras
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='4t16i2$ma94t@orsmga001.jf.intel.com' \
--to=kenneth.w.chen@intel.com \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=benedict.gaster@superh.com \
--cc=bjornw@axis.com \
--cc=chris@zankel.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=davidm@hpl.hp.com \
--cc=grundler@parisc-linux.org \
--cc=joe@tensilica.com \
--cc=lethal@linux-sh.org \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mips@linux-mips.org \
--cc=linux390@de.ibm.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=marc@tensilica.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=mj@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz \
--cc=parisc-linux@parisc-linux.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=ralf@linux-mips.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=rth@twiddle.net \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=spyro@f2s.com \
--cc=starvik@axis.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.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.