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

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

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