On Fri, 2 Nov 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

quoted text
> 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.

quoted text
> 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.

-
unsubscribe notice
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/