| To: | Christoph Lameter <christoph@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] NUMA aware allocation of transmit and receive buffers for e1000 |
| From: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 18 May 2005 15:19:34 +0200 |
| Cc: | akpm@xxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, shai@xxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.62.0505172125210.22920@graphe.net> (Christoph Lameter's message of "Tue, 17 May 2005 21:27:48 -0700 (PDT)") |
| 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> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0505172125210.22920@graphe.net> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) |
Christoph Lameter <christoph@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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 |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Thomas Graf |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] NUMA aware allocation of transmit and receive buffers for e1000, Andi Kleen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] e1000: NUMA aware allocation of descriptors V2, Andrew Morton |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] NUMA aware allocation of transmit and receive buffers for e1000, Andi Kleen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |