From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [patch 00/41] cpu alloc / cpu ops v3: Optimize per cpu access Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 12:00:22 -0600 Message-ID: <20080530180021.GJ22636@parisc-linux.org> References: <20080530035620.587204923@sgi.com> <20080529215827.b659d032.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080529222143.5d7aa1e5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <48401169.3050706@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from palinux.external.hp.com ([192.25.206.14]:56786 "EHLO mail.parisc-linux.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752084AbYE3SAX (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 May 2008 14:00:23 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Mike Travis , Andrew Morton , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Miller , Eric Dumazet , Peter Zijlstra , Rusty Russell On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:50:04AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > cpu alloc v2 had an extendable per cpu space. You have the patches. We > could put this on top of this patchset if necessary. But then it not so > nice and simple anymore. Maybe we can rstrict the use of cpu alloc > instead to users with objects < cache_line_size() or so? Restricting the use of cpu_alloc based on size of object is no good when you're trying to allocate 45,000 objects. Extending the per CPU space is the only option. -- Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step."