From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B08C86B0044 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:51:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:06:32 +0100 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [patch] SLQB slab allocator Message-ID: <20090123150632.GS15750@one.firstfloor.org> References: <20090121143008.GV24891@wotan.suse.de> <87hc3qcpo1.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <20090123112555.GF19986@wotan.suse.de> <20090123115731.GO15750@one.firstfloor.org> <20090123131800.GH19986@wotan.suse.de> <20090123140406.GR15750@one.firstfloor.org> <20090123142753.GK19986@wotan.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090123142753.GK19986@wotan.suse.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Nick Piggin Cc: Andi Kleen , Pekka Enberg , Linux Memory Management List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , Lin Ming , "Zhang, Yanmin" List-ID: On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 03:27:53PM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > Although I think I would prefer alloc_percpu, possibly with > > per_cpu_ptr(first_cpu(node_to_cpumask(node)), ...) > > I don't think we have the NUMA information available early enough > to do that. How early? At mem_init time it should be there because bootmem needed it already. It meaning the architectural level NUMA information. > OK, but if it is _possible_ for the node to gain memory, then you > can't do that of course. In theory it could gain memory through memory hotplug. > > I'm sure such a straight forward change could be still put into .29 > > > > > reasonable to merge. But it would be a fine cleanup. > > > > Hmm to be honest it's a little weird to post so much code and then > > say you can't change large parts of it. > > The cache_line_size() change wouldn't change slqb code significantly. > I have no problem with it, but I simply won't have time to do it and > test all architectures and get them merged and hold off merging > SLQB until they all get merged. I was mainly refering to the sysfs code here. > > Could you perhaps mark all the code you don't want to change? > > Primarily the debug code from SLUB. Ok so you could fix the sysfs code? @) Anyways, if you have such shared pieces perhaps it would be better if you just pull them all out into a separate file. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org