Re: [PATCH 00/05] robust per_cpu allocation for modules

[Nick Piggin]

Steven Rostedt wrote:

> Understood, but I'm going to start looking in the way Rusty and Arnd
> suggested with the vmalloc approach. This would allow for saving of
> memory and dynamic allocation of module memory making it more robust. And
> all this without that evil extra indirection!

Remember that this approach could effectively just move the indirection to
the TLB / page tables (well, I say "moves" because large kernel mappings
are effectively free compared with 4K mappings).

So be careful about coding up a large amount of work before unleashing it:
I doubt you'll be able to find a solution that doesn't involve tradeoffs
somewhere (but wohoo if you can).

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/