On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 04:17:59 +0200
Andi Kleen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > And it's a pretty nasty one because it can get people into the situation
> > where the kernel worked fine for those who released it, but users who
> > happen to load more modules (or the right combination of them) will
> > experience per-cpu memory exhaustion.
>
> Yes, and a high value will waste a lot of memory for normal users.
>
> > So shouldn't we being scaling the per-cpu memory as well?
>
> If we move it into vmalloc space it would be easy to extend at runtime - just the
> virtual address space would need to be prereserved, but then more pages
> could be mapped. Maybe we should just do that instead of continuing to kludge around?
Sounds sane.
otoh, we need something for 2.6.19.
> Drawback would be some more TLB misses.
yup. On some (important) architectures - I'm not sure which architectures
do the bigpage-for-kernel trick.
-
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/
[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]
