[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <477916ED.8010602@sgi.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:21:01 -0800
From: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
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
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * 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
I've tested some x86_64 configs but the UP model is currently broken so I
haven't been able to test that. (the "fs/nfs/super.c" build problem with
TASK_NORMAL and TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE undefined.)
Thanks,
Mike
--
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