WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFO] #2: removing a concurrency bottleneck

To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [RFO] #2: removing a concurrency bottleneck
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:46:55 +0000
Cc: "Xen-Devel \(E-mail\)" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 01:47:23 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <49C3622E.76E4.0078.0@xxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcmpNvPNXf4nWHHfQbSJsBZjF9QMjAAAXgVP
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [RFO] #2: removing a concurrency bottleneck
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.15.0.081119
On 20/03/2009 08:30, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> It should certainly be num_possible_cpus(), which (hopefully) is identical to
> num_present_cpus() until physical CPU hotplug gets supported, in which
> case some infrastructure will need to be added anyway so that your and
> other code could do such per-CPU allocations on demand.
> 
> Other than Keir suggested, I'd not recommend adding further NR_CPUS
> sized arrays (based mostly on how long it took to mostly (fully?) get rid of
> them in Linux in order to support huge systems) - just use per-CPU pointers
> to dynamically allocated memory.

Oh yes, that's a better idea! Please do that instead.

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>