From: Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] modules: Use a better scheme for refcounting
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 06:41:16 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <482D8EFC.8040109@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <482D1BCE.3060501@cosmosbay.com>
Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Rusty Russell a écrit :
...
>>
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> I like this patch! The plan was always to create a proper dynamic
>> per-cpu
>> allocator which used the normal per-cpu offsets, but I think module
>> refcounts
>> are worthwhile as a special case.
>>
>> Any chance I can ask you look at the issue of full dynamic per-cpu
>> allocation? The problem of allocating memory which is laid out precisely
>> as the original per-cpu alloc is vexing on NUMA, and probably requires
>> reserving virtual address space and remapping into it, but the rewards
>> would be maximally-efficient per-cpu accessors, and getting rid of that
>> boutique allocator in module.c.
>>
>>
> You mean using alloc_percpu() ? Problem is that current implementation
> is expensive, since it is using
> an extra array of pointers (struct percpu_data). On x86_64, that means
> at least a 200% space increase
> over the solution of using 4 bytes in the static percpu zone. We
> probably can change this to dynamic
> per-cpu as soon as Mike or Christopher finish their work on new dynamic
> per-cpu implementation ?
Yes, the zero-based percpu variables followed by the cpu_alloc patch should
provide this and shrink the code quite well, including in some cases removing
locking requirements (because the resultant instructions will be atomic.)
Thanks,
Mike
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-05-16 13:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-05-15 20:40 [PATCH] modules: Use a better scheme for refcounting Eric Dumazet
2008-05-15 21:57 ` Andi Kleen
2008-05-16 4:44 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-05-16 0:09 ` Rusty Russell
2008-05-16 5:29 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-05-16 13:41 ` Mike Travis [this message]
2008-05-17 5:33 ` Rusty Russell
2008-05-17 7:36 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-05-18 14:31 ` Rusty Russell
2008-05-19 16:42 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-05-19 16:41 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-05-19 18:04 ` Mike Travis
2008-05-19 16:39 ` Christoph Lameter
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-02-03 3:01 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=482D8EFC.8040109@sgi.com \
--to=travis@sgi.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=clameter@sgi.com \
--cc=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
/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