RE: [PATCH 00/05] robust per_cpu allocation for modules

Steven Rostedt
2006-04-14T22:19:18Z

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:

> 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 ;-)
>

I was waiting for someone to make that comment :)

But someone who has the money to own a 64-processor machine, is probably
also a penny pincher, and wants to hold on to their pocket change ;-)

-- Steve