| To: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] NUMA aware allocation of transmit and receive buffers for e1000 |
| From: | Christoph Lameter <christoph@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 17 May 2005 21:27:48 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | akpm@xxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, shai@xxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20050517.195703.104034854.davem@davemloft.net> |
| References: | <Pine.LNX.4.62.0505171854490.20408@graphe.net> <20050517190343.2e57fdd7.akpm@osdl.org> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0505171941340.21153@graphe.net> <20050517.195703.104034854.davem@davemloft.net> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
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? |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded, John Heffner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] NUMA aware allocation of transmit and receive buffers for e1000, Andrew Morton |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] NUMA aware allocation of transmit and receive buffers for e1000, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] NUMA aware allocation of transmit and receive buffers for e1000, Andrew Morton |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |