[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071230141829.GA28415@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 15:18:29 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] x86_64: Use generic percpu
* Mike Travis <travis@....com> wrote:
> > Also for such changes .text size comparisons before/after are a good
> > idea.
>
> x86_64-defconfig:
>
> pre-percpu post-percpu
> 159373 .init.text +3 .init.text
> 1411137 .rodata +8 .rodata
> 3629056 .text +48 .text
> 7057383 Total +59 Total
ok, that looks like really minimal impact, so i'm in favor of merging
this into arch/x86 - and the unification it does later on is nice too.
to get more test feedback: what would be the best way to get this tested
in x86.git in a standalone way? Can i just pick up these 10 patches and
remove all the non-x86 arch changes, and expect it to work - or are the
other percpu preparatory/cleanup patches in -mm needed too?
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists