[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0805292317470.12457@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 23:21:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mike Travis <travis@....com>
Subject: Re: [patch 03/41] cpu alloc: Use cpu allocator instead of the builtin
modules per cpu allocator
On Fri, 30 May 2008, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Hmm, does cpu_free(NULL, 0) do something? Seems like it shouldn't, for
> symmetry with free().
No it just returns.
> > + percpu = cpu_alloc(size, GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_ZERO, align);
> > + if (!percpu)
> > + printk(KERN_WARNING "Could not allocate %lu bytes percpu data\n",
> > + size);
> > if (!percpu) {
> > err = -ENOMEM;
> > goto free_mod;
>
> OK, we've *never* had a report of the per-cpu alignment message, so I'd be
> happy to pass that through to cpu_alloc() and have it fail. Also, the if
> (!percpu) cases should be combined.
Ack.
> > free_percpu:
> > if (percpu)
> > - percpu_modfree(percpu);
> > + cpu_free(percpu, percpu_size);
>
> As above.
The if can be dropped.
>
> > + goal = __per_cpu_size;
>
> Where did __per_cpu_size come from? I missed it in the earlier patches...
Its __per_cpu_end - __per_cpu_start.
--
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