From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
Cc: akpm@zip.com.au, torvalds@transmeta.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davidm@hpl.hp.com, rth@twiddle.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Unlimited per-cpu allocation
Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 13:07:21 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030517030820.E17F72C018@lists.samba.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 16 May 2003 19:38:47 MST." <20030516.193847.15241922.davem@redhat.com>
In message <20030516.193847.15241922.davem@redhat.com> you write:
> From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
> Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 11:58:55 +1000
>
> IA64 could just use the generic mechanism, like everyone else. But
> they do the tricky 64k mapping thing. As I pointed out, maybe their
> decision would have to be rethought if that proves inadaquate.
>
> But we should also give them the option to implement module percpu
> data using indirect buffers.
Well, AFAICT that can't be done realistically: the module percpu
mechanisms must be the same as the core ones (you can't hide the
difference under #ifdef MODULE, either, since they can be handed
about).
You can do TLS-style tricks (with toolchain support), but we don't
need to, and almost certainly don't want to.
The question is not whether we need this allocator to implement percpu
inside modules (we do), but whether it can also be used for
kmalloc_percpu.
Hope that clarifies,
Rusty.
--
Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-05-17 2:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-05-16 5:30 [PATCH] Unlimited per-cpu allocation Rusty Russell
2003-05-16 5:42 ` David S. Miller
2003-05-17 1:58 ` Rusty Russell
2003-05-17 2:38 ` David S. Miller
2003-05-17 3:07 ` Rusty Russell [this message]
2003-05-17 3:10 ` David S. Miller
2003-05-17 11:36 ` Rusty Russell
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=20030517030820.E17F72C018@lists.samba.org \
--to=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=akpm@zip.com.au \
--cc=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=davidm@hpl.hp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rth@twiddle.net \
--cc=torvalds@transmeta.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox