Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262064AbVERCxB (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 May 2005 22:53:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262059AbVERCxB (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 May 2005 22:53:01 -0400 Received: from graphe.net ([209.204.138.32]:5896 "EHLO graphe.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262064AbVERCwq (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 May 2005 22:52:46 -0400 Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 19:52:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: christoph@graphe.net To: Andrew Morton cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] NUMA aware allocation of transmit and receive buffers for e1000 In-Reply-To: <20050517190343.2e57fdd7.akpm@osdl.org> Message-ID: References: <20050517190343.2e57fdd7.akpm@osdl.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: -5.9 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1018 Lines: 30 On Tue, 17 May 2005, Andrew Morton wrote: > Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > > NUMA awareness for the e1000 driver. Allocate transmit and receive buffers > > on the node of the device. > > Hast thou any benchmarking results? Yes, your honor. Just a second .... The patch has been around for a long time. No benchmarks results in my email archive. Would need to talk to some folks tomorrow and maybe we would have to run some new benchmarks. > > - txdr->buffer_info = vmalloc(size); > > + txdr->buffer_info = kmalloc_node(size, GFP_KERNEL, node); > > How come that this is safe to do Because physically contiguous memory is usually better than virtually contiguous memory? Any reason that physically contiguous memory will break the driver? - 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/