From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932302AbWDBJQF (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Apr 2006 05:16:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932095AbWDBJQE (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Apr 2006 05:16:04 -0400 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.149]:12694 "EHLO e31.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932302AbWDBJQB (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Apr 2006 05:16:01 -0400 Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 14:47:45 +0530 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri To: "Siddha, Suresh B" Cc: Nick Piggin , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Dinakar Guniguntala , pj@sgi.com, hawkes@sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.16-mm2 4/4] sched_domain: Allocate sched_group structures dynamically Message-ID: <20060402091745.GC13423@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: vatsa@in.ibm.com References: <20060401185644.GC25971@in.ibm.com> <442F2B52.6000205@yahoo.com.au> <20060401233512.B8662@unix-os.sc.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060401233512.B8662@unix-os.sc.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 11:35:13PM -0800, Siddha, Suresh B wrote: > Only thing I see in this is, even if there are very few cpus in the > exclusive cpuset, we end up allocating NR_CPUS groups and waste memory. I had realized that, but used NR_CPUS just to keep it simple (as is being done in the case of NUMA - where they simply allocate for MAX_NODES). I can take a shot at optimizing the memory allocation size (for NUMA as well) and send another patch later, if people think so. -- Regards, vatsa