[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48750C6C.5090606@goop.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 12:07:24 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Mike Travis <travis@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/15] x86_64: Optimize percpu accesses
Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Well yes I agree these could be better if the fields would be moved out of the pda
> structure itself but then it wont be mechanical anymore and require more
> review.
Yes, but they'll have more value. And if you do it as one variable per
patch, then it should be easy to bisect should any problems arise.
> But these are an important step because they allow us to get rid of the
> pda operations that do not exist for 32 bit.
>
No, they don't help at all, because they convert X_pda(Y) (which doesn't
exist) into x86_X_percpu(pda.Y) (which also doesn't exist). They don't
remove any #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64's. If you're going to tromp all over
the source, you may as well do the most useful thing in the first step.
J
--
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