Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755588AbZAWOvU (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:51:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752723AbZAWOvM (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:51:12 -0500 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:45151 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752015AbZAWOvL (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:51:11 -0500 Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:06:32 +0100 From: Andi Kleen To: Nick Piggin Cc: Andi Kleen , Pekka Enberg , Linux Memory Management List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , Lin Ming , "Zhang, Yanmin" Subject: Re: [patch] SLQB slab allocator Message-ID: <20090123150632.GS15750@one.firstfloor.org> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090123142753.GK19986@wotan.suse.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1685 Lines: 48 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. > 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. > > I'm sure such a straight forward change could be still put into .29 > > > > > reasonable to merge. But it would be a fine cleanup. > > > > Hmm to be honest it's a little weird to post so much code and then > > say you can't change large parts of it. > > 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. > > 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. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only. -- 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/