From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail172.messagelabs.com (mail172.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69CAF6B0044 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:15:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:15:25 +0100 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [patch] SLQB slab allocator Message-ID: <20090123151525.GL19986@wotan.suse.de> 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> <20090123150632.GS15750@one.firstfloor.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090123150632.GS15750@one.firstfloor.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Andi Kleen Cc: Pekka Enberg , Linux Memory Management List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , Lin Ming , "Zhang, Yanmin" List-ID: On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 04:06:32PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > 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. node_to_cpumask(0) returned 0 at kmem_cache_init time. > > 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. Yes. > > 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. OK. > > > 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. I'll see. I do plan to try making improvements to this peripheral code but it just has to wait a little bit for other improvements first. -- 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