From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262223AbVGKED3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:03:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262225AbVGKED2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:03:28 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:64219 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262223AbVGKEDN (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:03:13 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] i386: Per node IDT From: Arjan van de Ven To: Andi Kleen Cc: Zwane Mwaikambo , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 06:02:44 +0200 Message-Id: <1121054565.3177.2.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.2 (2.2.2-5) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.9 (++) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.0.4 on pentafluge.infradead.org summary: Content analysis details: (2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.1 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address [80.57.133.107 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 2.8 RCVD_IN_DSBL RBL: Received via a relay in list.dsbl.org [] X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 03:59 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > Why per node? Why not go the whole way and make it per CPU? Agreed, for two reasons even 1) Per cpu allows for even more devices and cache locality 2) While few people have a NUMA system, many have an SMP system so you get a lot more testing. > I would also not define it statically, but allocate it at boot time > in node local memory. this is probably more tricky so I would suggest doing this in a second step.