On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 10:02:55PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Samuel Thibault, le Thu 18 Aug 2005 21:49:41 +0200, a ?crit :
> > Eric Dumazet, le Thu 18 Aug 2005 17:18:55 +0200, a ?crit :
> > > I believe IRQ stacks are also allocated on node 0, that seems more
> > > serious.
> >
> > For the
--On Thursday, August 18, 2005 22:02:55 +0200 Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Samuel Thibault, le Thu 18 Aug 2005 21:49:41 +0200, a écrit :
>> Eric Dumazet, le Thu 18 Aug 2005 17:18:55 +0200, a écrit :
>> > I believe IRQ stacks are also allocated on node 0, that seems more
Samuel Thibault, le Thu 18 Aug 2005 21:49:41 +0200, a écrit :
> Eric Dumazet, le Thu 18 Aug 2005 17:18:55 +0200, a écrit :
> > I believe IRQ stacks are also allocated on node 0, that seems more serious.
>
> For the i386 architecture at least, yes: they are statically defined in
>
Eric Dumazet, le Thu 18 Aug 2005 17:18:55 +0200, a écrit :
> I believe IRQ stacks are also allocated on node 0, that seems more serious.
For the i386 architecture at least, yes: they are statically defined in
arch/i386/kernel/irq.c, while they could be per_cpu.
Regards,
Samuel
-
To unsubscribe
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 04:08:29PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> A solution would be to add to copy_process(), dup_task_struct(),
> alloc_task_struct() and kmem_cache_alloc() the node number on which
> allocation should be performed. This might also be useful if performing
> node load balancing
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Indeed, but I guess there are a lot of such little optimizations here
> and there that could be relatively easily fixed, for a not-so little
> benefit.
Get on it :-) I hope the kmalloc_node stuff etc that was recently added is
enough for most
Eric Dumazet, le Thu 18 Aug 2005 17:18:55 +0200, a écrit :
> An idle task should block itself, hence not touching its task_t structure
> very much.
Indeed, but I guess there are a lot of such little optimizations here
and there that could be relatively easily fixed, for a not-so little
benefit.
Samuel Thibault a écrit :
Hi,
Currently, the task_t structure of the idle task is always allocated
on CPU0, hence on node 0: while booting, for each CPU, CPU 0 calls
fork_idle(), hence copy_process(), hence dup_task_struct(), hence
alloc_task_struct(), hence kmem_cache_alloc(), which picks up
Hi,
Currently, the task_t structure of the idle task is always allocated
on CPU0, hence on node 0: while booting, for each CPU, CPU 0 calls
fork_idle(), hence copy_process(), hence dup_task_struct(), hence
alloc_task_struct(), hence kmem_cache_alloc(), which picks up memory
from the allocation
Hi,
Currently, the task_t structure of the idle task is always allocated
on CPU0, hence on node 0: while booting, for each CPU, CPU 0 calls
fork_idle(), hence copy_process(), hence dup_task_struct(), hence
alloc_task_struct(), hence kmem_cache_alloc(), which picks up memory
from the allocation
Samuel Thibault a écrit :
Hi,
Currently, the task_t structure of the idle task is always allocated
on CPU0, hence on node 0: while booting, for each CPU, CPU 0 calls
fork_idle(), hence copy_process(), hence dup_task_struct(), hence
alloc_task_struct(), hence kmem_cache_alloc(), which picks up
Eric Dumazet, le Thu 18 Aug 2005 17:18:55 +0200, a écrit :
An idle task should block itself, hence not touching its task_t structure
very much.
Indeed, but I guess there are a lot of such little optimizations here
and there that could be relatively easily fixed, for a not-so little
benefit.
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Indeed, but I guess there are a lot of such little optimizations here
and there that could be relatively easily fixed, for a not-so little
benefit.
Get on it :-) I hope the kmalloc_node stuff etc that was recently added is
enough for most
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 04:08:29PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
A solution would be to add to copy_process(), dup_task_struct(),
alloc_task_struct() and kmem_cache_alloc() the node number on which
allocation should be performed. This might also be useful if performing
node load balancing at
Eric Dumazet, le Thu 18 Aug 2005 17:18:55 +0200, a écrit :
I believe IRQ stacks are also allocated on node 0, that seems more serious.
For the i386 architecture at least, yes: they are statically defined in
arch/i386/kernel/irq.c, while they could be per_cpu.
Regards,
Samuel
-
To unsubscribe
Samuel Thibault, le Thu 18 Aug 2005 21:49:41 +0200, a écrit :
Eric Dumazet, le Thu 18 Aug 2005 17:18:55 +0200, a écrit :
I believe IRQ stacks are also allocated on node 0, that seems more serious.
For the i386 architecture at least, yes: they are statically defined in
--On Thursday, August 18, 2005 22:02:55 +0200 Samuel Thibault [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
Samuel Thibault, le Thu 18 Aug 2005 21:49:41 +0200, a écrit :
Eric Dumazet, le Thu 18 Aug 2005 17:18:55 +0200, a écrit :
I believe IRQ stacks are also allocated on node 0, that seems more serious.
For
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 10:02:55PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Samuel Thibault, le Thu 18 Aug 2005 21:49:41 +0200, a ?crit :
Eric Dumazet, le Thu 18 Aug 2005 17:18:55 +0200, a ?crit :
I believe IRQ stacks are also allocated on node 0, that seems more
serious.
For the i386
18 matches
Mail list logo
