public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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