Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262081AbVEREat (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 May 2005 00:30:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262088AbVEREaq (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 May 2005 00:30:46 -0400 Received: from graphe.net ([209.204.138.32]:12050 "EHLO graphe.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262081AbVERE2A (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 May 2005 00:28:00 -0400 Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 21:27:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: christoph@graphe.net To: "David S. Miller" cc: akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com, shai@scalex86.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] NUMA aware allocation of transmit and receive buffers for e1000 In-Reply-To: <20050517.195703.104034854.davem@davemloft.net> Message-ID: References: <20050517190343.2e57fdd7.akpm@osdl.org> <20050517.195703.104034854.davem@davemloft.net> 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: 642 Lines: 16 On Tue, 17 May 2005, David S. Miller wrote: > > Because physically contiguous memory is usually better than virtually > > contiguous memory? Any reason that physically contiguous memory will > > break the driver? > > The issue is whether size can end up being too large for > kmalloc() to satisfy, whereas vmalloc() would be able to > handle it. Oww.. We need a NUMA aware vmalloc for this? - 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/