linux-next: cpu_alloc tree

linux-next: cpu_alloc tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 319 bytes --]

Hi Christoph,

The cpu_alloc tree has not been included in linux-next since Nov 21.  Have
your discussions with Rusty come to any conclusions?  Should I remove
this tree permanently or will it be updated?

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: cpu_alloc tree

[Christoph Lameter]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> The cpu_alloc tree has not been included in linux-next since Nov 21.  Have
> your discussions with Rusty come to any conclusions?  Should I remove
> this tree permanently or will it be updated?

I thought Rusty would be doing something. If not then I will bring things
up to snuff.

Re: linux-next: cpu_alloc tree

[Rusty Russell]

On Wednesday 17 December 2008 01:21:26 Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> 
> > The cpu_alloc tree has not been included in linux-next since Nov 21.  Have
> > your discussions with Rusty come to any conclusions?  Should I remove
> > this tree permanently or will it be updated?
> 
> I thought Rusty would be doing something. If not then I will bring things
> up to snuff.

Thanks for the prod, I was distracted by cpumasks and local_t, the latter
tangentially related.

The current patches work, but introduce new limits on eg. number of
network devices.  Those have to be diverted to a lesser percpu allocator
until we get dynamic percpu sizing.  I do not want to block this work on
that: you've shown how useful even small allocs can be in key places.

Expect another set of patches this week.

Thanks,
Rusty.