[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2018 11:08:27 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
rafael@...nel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
darrick.wong@...cle.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
hughd@...gle.com, shuah@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org,
ulf.hansson@...aro.org, aspriel@...il.com,
vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org, robin.murphy@....com, joe@...ches.com,
heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com, vdavydov.dev@...il.com,
mhocko@...e.com, chris@...is-wilson.co.uk,
penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp, aryabinin@...tuozzo.com,
willy@...radead.org, ying.huang@...el.com, shakeelb@...gle.com,
jbacik@...com, mingo@...nel.org, mhiramat@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 01/10] rcu: Make CONFIG_SRCU unconditionally enabled
Hi Kirill,
On Tue, 07 Aug 2018 18:37:36 +0300 Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com> wrote:
>
> This patch kills all CONFIG_SRCU defines and
> the code under !CONFIG_SRCU.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
So what sort of overheads (in terms of code size and performance) are
we adding by having SRCU enabled where it used not to be?
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists