Re: [RFC] vmalloc with the ability to specify a node

From: Grant Grundler <iod00d_at_hp.com>
Date: 2005-06-02 11:34:21
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 03:52:42PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> I was surprised to see that some drivers allocate memory structures
> using vmalloc.

It's drivers I care about. :^(

grundler@gsyprf3:/usr/src/linux-2.6$ fgrep vmalloc drivers/net/*/*c
drivers/net/e1000/e1000.mod.c:  { 0xd6ee688f, "vmalloc" },
drivers/net/e1000/e1000_main.c: txdr->buffer_info = vmalloc(size);
drivers/net/e1000/e1000_main.c: rxdr->buffer_info = vmalloc(size);
drivers/net/ixgb/ixgb.mod.c:    { 0xd6ee688f, "vmalloc" },
drivers/net/ixgb/ixgb_main.c:   txdr->buffer_info = vmalloc(size);
drivers/net/ixgb/ixgb_main.c:   rxdr->buffer_info = vmalloc(size);
grundler@gsyprf3:/usr/src/linux-2.6$ fgrep vmalloc drivers/scsi/*/*c
drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla2xxx.mod.c:     { 0xd6ee688f, "vmalloc" },
drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_os.c:#include <linux/vmalloc.h>
drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_os.c:                  ha->fw_dump_buffer = (char *)vmalloc(dump_size);

Could someone explain to me why this is a bad thing on NUMA machines?
I assume it has something to do with mem locality and how the memory
is used.

> Only tested in a limited way. Boots fine. Is this worth doing?

Any difference in performance?
Any clue why it matters?

grant
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Received on Wed Jun 1 21:32:03 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:39 EST