Message-ID: <43FB76EF.9080406@de.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:24:15 +0100
From: Martin Peschke <mp3@de.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: How to allocate per-cpu data for online CPUs only (and safely)?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1356
Lines: 37

I am trying to optimize the memory footprint of some code of mine.
It's been using per-cpu data and alloc_percpu() so far. The latter has 
the disadvantage of getting hold of memory for CPU's which aren't there 
(yet).

I could imagine using CPU-hotplug notifications as triggers for 
additional allocations or for cleaning up unneeded memory. But 
alloc_percpu() appears to conflict with that idea.

I was briefly tempted to derive some code from alloc_percpu() more to my 
liking, until I was scared off by this comment in alloc_percpu():

         /*
          * Cannot use for_each_online_cpu since a cpu may come online
          * and we have no way of figuring out how to fix the array
          * that we have allocated then....
          */

Well, and then there is kernel/profile.c, for example, which boldly 
ignors alloc_percpu()'s qualms and allocates and releases per-cpu data 
as needed.

Is that the way to go?
If so, why alloc_percpu()'s reservations?
Or, does that comment imply that the exploiter isn't expected to take 
care of CPU hotplug events?
Am I missing anything?

Thank you.

Martin

-
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/