On Fri, 2 Nov 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 15:58 -0700, David Miller wrote: > > > Since you're the one who wants to change the semantics and guarentees > > of this interface, perhaps it might help if you did some greps around > > the tree to see how alloc_percpu() is actually used. That's what > > I did when I started running into trouble with your patches. > > This fancy new BDI stuff also lives off percpu_counter/alloc_percpu(). Yes there are numerous uses. I even can increase page allocator performance and reduce its memory footprint by using it here. > That means that for example each NFS mount also consumes a number of > words - not quite sure from the top of my head how many, might be in the > order of 24 bytes or something. > > I once before started looking at this, because the current > alloc_percpu() can have some false sharing - not that I have machines > that are overly bothered by that. I like the idea of a strict percpu > region, however do be aware of the users. Well I wonder if I should introduce it not as a replacement but as an alternative to allocpercpu? We can then gradually switch over. The existing API does not allow the specification of gfp_masks or alignements. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
