* linux-next: cpu_alloc tree
@ 2008-12-16 6:05 Stephen Rothwell
2008-12-16 14:51 ` Christoph Lameter
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2008-12-16 6:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christoph Lameter; +Cc: linux-next, Rusty Russell
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 319 bytes --]
Hi Christoph,
The cpu_alloc tree has not been included in linux-next since Nov 21. Have
your discussions with Rusty come to any conclusions? Should I remove
this tree permanently or will it be updated?
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb•auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: cpu_alloc tree
2008-12-16 6:05 linux-next: cpu_alloc tree Stephen Rothwell
@ 2008-12-16 14:51 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-12-17 12:06 ` Rusty Russell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Lameter @ 2008-12-16 14:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Rothwell; +Cc: linux-next, Rusty Russell
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> The cpu_alloc tree has not been included in linux-next since Nov 21. Have
> your discussions with Rusty come to any conclusions? Should I remove
> this tree permanently or will it be updated?
I thought Rusty would be doing something. If not then I will bring things
up to snuff.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: cpu_alloc tree
2008-12-16 14:51 ` Christoph Lameter
@ 2008-12-17 12:06 ` Rusty Russell
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Rusty Russell @ 2008-12-17 12:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christoph Lameter; +Cc: Stephen Rothwell, linux-next
On Wednesday 17 December 2008 01:21:26 Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> > The cpu_alloc tree has not been included in linux-next since Nov 21. Have
> > your discussions with Rusty come to any conclusions? Should I remove
> > this tree permanently or will it be updated?
>
> I thought Rusty would be doing something. If not then I will bring things
> up to snuff.
Thanks for the prod, I was distracted by cpumasks and local_t, the latter
tangentially related.
The current patches work, but introduce new limits on eg. number of
network devices. Those have to be diverted to a lesser percpu allocator
until we get dynamic percpu sizing. I do not want to block this work on
that: you've shown how useful even small allocs can be in key places.
Expect another set of patches this week.
Thanks,
Rusty.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-12-17 12:06 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-12-16 6:05 linux-next: cpu_alloc tree Stephen Rothwell
2008-12-16 14:51 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-12-17 12:06 ` Rusty Russell
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox