On Wed, 13 Mar 2019, Barret Rhoden wrote:
> > It is very expensive. VMSP exchanges 4K segments via RDMA between servers
> > to build a large address space and run a kernel in the large address
> > space. Using smaller segments can cause a lot of
> > "cacheline" bouncing (meaning transfers of 4K se
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 10:18:48AM +0200, Eial Czerwacki wrote:
> Greetings Paul,
>
> On 3/15/19 12:19 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 10:36:19AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 04:11:55PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>> commit 34f67df09cc0c6bf082a
Greetings Paul,
On 3/15/19 12:19 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 10:36:19AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 04:11:55PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> commit 34f67df09cc0c6bf082a7cfca435373caeeb8d82
>>> Author: Paul E. McKenney
>>> Date: Wed Mar 13 16
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 10:36:19AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 04:11:55PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > commit 34f67df09cc0c6bf082a7cfca435373caeeb8d82
> > Author: Paul E. McKenney
> > Date: Wed Mar 13 16:06:22 2019 -0700
> >
> > srcu: Forbid DEFINE{,_STATIC}_SRCU
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 04:11:55PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> commit 34f67df09cc0c6bf082a7cfca435373caeeb8d82
> Author: Paul E. McKenney
> Date: Wed Mar 13 16:06:22 2019 -0700
>
> srcu: Forbid DEFINE{,_STATIC}_SRCU() from modules
>
> Adding DEFINE_SRCU() or DEFINE_STATIC_SRCU
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 02:29:12PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 02:22:55PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Should I define DEFINE_SRCU() and DEFINE_STATIC_SRCU() only if
> > !defined(MODULE)?
>
> Yeah, that sounds like a great idea with comments explaining why i
Hello,
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 02:22:55PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Should I define DEFINE_SRCU() and DEFINE_STATIC_SRCU() only if
> !defined(MODULE)?
Yeah, that sounds like a great idea with comments explaining why it's
like that.
Thanks.
--
tejun
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 01:26:40PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 03:40:04PM -0400, Barret Rhoden wrote:
> > Are there any other alternatives? Not using static SRCU in any code
> > that could be built as a module seems a little harsh.
>
> Yes, allocate the srcu dyna
Hello,
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 03:40:04PM -0400, Barret Rhoden wrote:
> Are there any other alternatives? Not using static SRCU in any code
> that could be built as a module seems a little harsh.
Yes, allocate the srcu dynamically on module init and destroy on
module exit. That's how the other
Hi -
On 03/01/2019 04:54 PM, Christopher Lameter wrote:
On Fri, 1 Mar 2019, Barret Rhoden wrote:
I'm not familiar with VSMP - how bad is it to use L1 cache alignment instead
of 4K page alignment? Maybe some structures can use the smaller alignment?
Or maybe have VSMP require SRCU-using module
Lameter (maintainer:PER-CPU MEMORY ALLOCATOR)
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (open list)
>
> I added the three maintainers to this email.
>
> I have a few minor comments below.
>
thanks, I did not knew that, I'll use it next time.
>> [PATCH] percpu/module resevation: change re
On Fri, 1 Mar 2019, Barret Rhoden wrote:
> I'm not familiar with VSMP - how bad is it to use L1 cache alignment instead
> of 4K page alignment? Maybe some structures can use the smaller alignment?
> Or maybe have VSMP require SRCU-using modules to be built-in?
It is very expensive. VMSP exchange
er:PER-CPU MEMORY ALLOCATOR)
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (open list)
I added the three maintainers to this email.
I have a few minor comments below.
[PATCH] percpu/module resevation: change resevation size iff X86_VSMP is
set
You misspelled 'reservation'. Also, I'd just say:
istoph Lameter (maintainer:PER-CPU MEMORY ALLOCATOR)
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (open list)
>
> I added the three maintainers to this email.
>
> I have a few minor comments below.
>
> > [PATCH] percpu/module resevation: change resevation size iff X86_VSMP is
&
e a few minor comments below.
> [PATCH] percpu/module resevation: change resevation size iff X86_VSMP
is set
You misspelled 'reservation'. Also, I'd just say: "percpu: increase
module reservation size if X86_VSMP is set". ('change' -> 'increase'
Greetings,
On 1/21/19 1:47 PM, Eial Czerwacki wrote:
> as reported in bug #201339
> (https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=201339)
> by enabling X86_VSMP, INTERNODE_CACHE_BYTES's definition differs from the
> default one
> causing the struct size to exceed the size ok 8KB.
>
> in order to
as reported in bug #201339 (https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=201339)
by enabling X86_VSMP, INTERNODE_CACHE_BYTES's definition differs from the
default one
causing the struct size to exceed the size ok 8KB.
in order to avoid such issue, increse PERCPU_MODULE_RESERVE to 64KB if
CONFIG_X
17 matches
Mail list logo
