Re: [PATCH 00/05] robust per_cpu allocation for modules

On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, Nick Piggin wrote:

> If I'm following you correctly, this adds another dependent load
> to a per-CPU data access, and from memory that isn't node-affine.

I am also concerned about that. Kiran has a patch to avoid allocpercpu
having to go through one level of indirection that I guess would no 
longer work with this scheme.
 
> If so, I think people with SMP and NUMA kernels would care more
> about performance and scalability than the few k of memory this
> saves.

Right.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH 00/05] robust per_cpu allocation for modules
    • From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH 00/05] robust per_cpu allocation for modules
    • From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 00/05] robust per_cpu allocation for modules
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Is notify_die being overloaded?
• Next by Date: Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 00/05] robust per_cpu allocation for modules
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 00/05] robust per_cpu allocation for modules
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]