Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list netdev); Wed, 18 May 2005 06:20:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from one.firstfloor.org (one.firstfloor.org [213.235.205.2]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id j4IDKDF3024293 for ; Wed, 18 May 2005 06:20:15 -0700 Received: by one.firstfloor.org (Postfix, from userid 502) id 6AE9CD033F; Wed, 18 May 2005 15:19:34 +0200 (CEST) To: Christoph Lameter Cc: akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com, shai@scalex86.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] NUMA aware allocation of transmit and receive buffers for e1000 References: <20050517190343.2e57fdd7.akpm@osdl.org> <20050517.195703.104034854.davem@davemloft.net> From: Andi Kleen Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 15:19:34 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Christoph Lameter's message of "Tue, 17 May 2005 21:27:48 -0700 (PDT)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 1306 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: ak@muc.de Precedence: bulk X-list: netdev Content-Length: 566 Lines: 18 Christoph Lameter writes: > On Tue, 17 May 2005, David S. Miller wrote: > >> > Because physically contiguous memory is usually better than virtually >> > contiguous memory? Any reason that physically contiguous memory will >> > break the driver? >> >> The issue is whether size can end up being too large for >> kmalloc() to satisfy, whereas vmalloc() would be able to >> handle it. > > Oww.. We need a NUMA aware vmalloc for this? You can do that already by just changing process NUMA policy temporarily while calling vmalloc. -Andi