Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 5 Dec 2002 08:08:54 -0700 | From | yodaiken@fsmlabs ... | Subject | Re: [patch] kmalloc_percpu -- 2 of 2 |
| |
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 06:11:53PM +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote: > > Doesn't your allocator increase chances of cache conflict on the same > > cpu ? > > > > You mean by increasing the footprint and the chance of eviction ? It > is a compromise. Or you would face NR_CPUS bloat and non-NUMA-node-local > accesses for all CPUs outside the NUMA node where your NR_CPUS array > is located.
What do you base the trade-off decision on?
> > Thanks > -- > Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com> http://lse.sourceforge.net > Linux Technology Center, IBM Software Lab, Bangalore, India. > - > 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/
-- --------------------------------------------------------- Victor Yodaiken Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company. www.fsmlabs.com www.rtlinux.com 1+ 505 838 9109
- 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/
| |