From: Jack Steiner <steiner@sgi.com>
To: pj@engr.sgi.com (Paul Jackson)
Cc: steiner@sgi.com (Jack Steiner),
dipankar@in.ibm.com (Dipankar Sarma),
nchr@us.ibm.com (Niels Christiansen),
kiran@linux.ibm.com, lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] [RFC] [PATCH] Scalable Statistics Counters
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 11:34:43 -0600 (CST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200112091734.LAA45393@fsgi055.americas.sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SGI.4.21.0112082027310.203252-100000@sam.engr.sgi.com> from "Paul Jackson" at Dec 08, 2001 08:44:37 PM
>
> I think Jack got his attribution wrong. Which is good for me,
> since I wrote what Jack just gently demolished <grin>.
And I probably should not have been reading mail while I
debugged a weird system hang. :-) I missed the earlier
part of the thread - I though you were refering to local
allocation.
I dont think I have a strong opinion yet about kmem_cache_alloc_node()
vs kmem_cache_alloc_cpu(). I would not be surprised to find that
both interfaces make sense.
If code want to allocate close to a cpu, then kmem_cache_alloc_cpu()
is the best choice. However, I would also expect that some code
already knows the node. Then kmem_cache_alloc_node() is best.
Conversion of cpu->node is easy. Conversion of node->cpu
is slightly more difficult (currently) and has the ambiguity
that there may be multiple cpus on the node - which one should
you select? And does it matter?
As precident, the page allocation routines are all node-based.
(ie., alloc_pages_node(), etc...)
--
Thanks
Jack Steiner (651-683-5302) (vnet 233-5302) steiner@sgi.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-12-09 17:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-12-06 16:10 Niels Christiansen
2001-12-07 8:54 ` Dipankar Sarma
2001-12-08 22:24 ` Paul Jackson
2001-12-09 3:46 ` Jack Steiner
2001-12-09 4:44 ` Paul Jackson
2001-12-09 17:34 ` Jack Steiner [this message]
2001-12-11 23:27 ` Paul Jackson
2001-12-07 11:39 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2001-12-08 13:46 ` Anton Blanchard
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-12-09 10:57 Manfred Spraul
2001-12-10 16:32 ` Jack Steiner
2001-12-10 17:00 ` Manfred Spraul
2001-12-08 17:43 Niels Christiansen
2001-12-09 11:46 ` Anton Blanchard
2001-12-07 9:52 Niels Christiansen
2001-12-07 10:10 ` Dipankar Sarma
2001-12-05 15:02 Niels Christiansen
2001-12-06 12:33 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2001-12-06 13:07 ` Arjan van de Ven
2001-12-06 14:09 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2001-12-06 14:10 ` Arjan van de Ven
2001-12-06 19:35 ` Dipankar Sarma
2001-12-07 21:09 ` Alex Bligh - linux-kernel
2001-12-07 21:16 ` Arjan van de Ven
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200112091734.LAA45393@fsgi055.americas.sgi.com \
--to=steiner@sgi.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=kiran@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=nchr@us.ibm.com \
--cc=pj@engr.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®