In message <15954.22427.557293.353363@gargle.gargle.HOWL> you write:
> Rusty Russell writes:
> > D: This adds percpu support for modules. A module cannot have more
> > D: percpu data than the base kernel does (on my kernel 5636 bytes).
>
> This limitation is quite horrible.
>
> Does the implementation have to be perfect? The per_cpu API can easily
> be simulated using good old NR_CPUS arrays:
The problem is that then you have to have to know whether this is a
per-cpu thing created in a module, or not, when you use it 8(
There are two things we can use to alleviate the problem. The first
would be to put a minimal cap on the per-cpu data size (eg. 8k). The
other possibility is to allocate on an object granularity, in which
case the rule becomes "no single per-cpu object can be larger than
XXX", but the cost is to write a mini allocator.
I agree with you (and John) about disliking the limitation, but is it
worse than the current no per-cpu stuff in modules at all?
Thanks!
Rusty.
-- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 23 2003 - 22:00:24 EST