> I talked with Christoph earlier and he basically said that the > constant can just be bumped up without any ill effect (it would be > great if Tony Luck can confirm this). So, it's an annoying thing and > in the long term removing would be a good idea but I don't think it's > anything major as long as it blows up during build not runtime. Yes, ia64 can use any supported page size for the percpu area (I tried a couple of different options, and saw no obvious problems). But ... the architecturally supported page sizes go up by powers of 4, so next choice from 64K is 256K then 1M, 4M, etc. This is also requires an edit of source code and re-compile. We could easily make it a config option ... but that is still inconvenient. The bloat introduced by adding percpu variables is multiplied by NR_CPUS ... and in my case that is 4096. It is easy to just shrug this off and say that such big systems have plenty of memory anyway, but the case that led to this issue (adding a percpu object that included a [NR_CPUS] array) shows that, IMHO, people are do not care enough about the bloat. I suspect that if I just increase the percpu area to 256K or 1M, I'll see this same issue when someone adds: struct foo { char buf[NR_CPUS][PAGE_SIZE]; }; DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct foo, bar); which needs 4k * 64k = 256M of per-cpu space ... i.e. 1T total. If such code is going to be deemed acceptable, then we do need to move away from the ia64 TLB mapped percpu area. -Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
![]() |