[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 3/4] mm: add find_alloc_contig_pages() interface
On 05/22/2018 06:41 PM, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> On 5/21/2018 4:48 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> I'm guessing that most (?all?) allocations will be order based. The use
>> cases I am aware of (hugetlbfs, Intel Cache Pseudo-Locking, RDMA) are all
>> order based. However, as commented in previous version taking arbitrary
>> nr_pages makes interface more future proof.
> I noticed this Cache Pseudo-Locking statement and would like to clarify.
> I have not been following this thread in detail so I would like to
> apologize first if my comments are out of context.
> Currently the Cache Pseudo-Locking allocations are order based because I
> assumed it was required by the allocator. The contiguous regions needed
> by Cache Pseudo-Locking will not always be order based - instead it is
> based on the granularity of the cache allocation. One example is a
> platform with 55MB L3 cache that can be divided into 20 equal portions.
> To support Cache Pseudo-Locking on this platform we need to be able to
> allocate contiguous regions at increments of 2816KB (the size of each
> portion). In support of this example platform regions needed would thus
> be 2816KB, 5632KB, 8448KB, etc.

Will there be any alignment requirements for these allocations e.g. for
minimizing conflict misses?


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-23 13:18    [W:0.104 / U:19.564 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site