From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262488AbTEFJXZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2003 05:23:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262489AbTEFJXZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2003 05:23:25 -0400 Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.130]:6303 "EHLO e32.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262488AbTEFJXY (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2003 05:23:24 -0400 Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 15:08:56 +0530 From: Dipankar Sarma To: Ravikiran G Thirumalai Cc: Rusty Russell , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@zip.com.au Subject: Re: [PATCH] kmalloc_percpu Message-ID: <20030506093856.GA9875@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: dipankar@in.ibm.com References: <20030506050744.GA29352@in.ibm.com> <20030506082949.F2A3217DE0@ozlabs.au.ibm.com> <20030506093411.GB29352@in.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030506093411.GB29352@in.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 03:04:11PM +0530, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote: > > Doesn't break with sparce CPU #s, but yes, it is inefficient. > > > > If you don't reduce NR_CPUS with CONFIG_NR_CPUS, you waste space (32 bit folks > won't like it) and if you say change CONFIG_NR_CPUS to 2, > and we have cpuid 4 on a 2 way you break right? If we have to address these > issues at all, why can't we use the simpler kmalloc_percpu patch > which I posted in the morning and avoid so much complexity and arch > dependency? We can have something like that for !CONFIG_NUMA and a NUMA-aware allocator with additional dereferencing cost for CONFIG_NUMA. Hopefully gains from numa-awareness will more than offset dereferencing costs. Thanks Dipankar