[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0904010948120.7643@qirst.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:49:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, tglx@...utronix.de, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>, rmk@....linux.org.uk,
starvik@...s.com, ralf@...ux-mips.org, davem@...emloft.net,
cooloney@...nel.org, kyle@...artin.ca, matthew@....cx,
grundler@...isc-linux.org, takata@...ux-m32r.org,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, rth@...ddle.net,
ink@...assic.park.msu.ru, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH UPDATED] percpu: use dynamic percpu allocator as the
default percpu allocator
On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > 1. Lot of unnecessary use of __read_mostly for local static variables that
> > are not on the hotpath. Patch follows in this message.
>
> Hmmm... Those are basically read-only vars once initialization is
> complete. IIUC, __read_mostly just puts the tagged variables into a
> separate segment so that they don't have to worry about cacheline
> bouncing. Is there any reason to remove __read_mostly? Or is it just
> that it's mostly superflous?
Yes its better for the variables to be all together if its not on hot
cache paths. And its better to keep the __read_mostly segment reserved for
frequently accessed variables.
--
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