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
-
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 : Wed May 07 2003 - 22:00:25 EST