[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080709194136.GD4804@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 21:41:36 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Travis <travis@....com>,
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
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
>> What is remaining is the task to rename
>>
>> pda.Y -> Z
>>
>> in order to make variable references the same under both arches.
>> Presumably the Z is the corresponding 32 bit variable. There are
>> likely a number of cases where the transformation is trivial if we
>> just identify the corresponding 32 bit equivalent.
>
> Yes, I understand that, but it's still pointless churn. The
> intermediate step is no improvement over what was there before, and
> isn't any closer to the desired final result.
>
> Once you've made the pda a percpu variable, and redefined all the
> X_pda macros in terms of x86_X_percpu, then there's no need to touch
> all the usage sites until you're *actually* going to unify something.
> Touching them all just because you find "X_pda" unsightly doesn't help
> anyone. Ideally every site you touch will remove a #ifdef
> CONFIG_X86_64, or make two as-yet unified pieces of code closer to
> unification.
that makes sense. Does everyone agree on #1-#2-#3 and then gradual
elimination of most pda members (without going through an intermediate
renaming of pda members) being the way to go?
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