[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090410035328.GB29496@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:53:28 -0700
From: Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>
To: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
xemul@...allels.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, hch@...radead.org, mingo@...e.hu,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/30] x86_64: ifdef out struct thread_struct::ip
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 06:35:22AM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> struct thread_struct::ip isn't used on x86_64, struct pt_regs::ip is used
> instead.
>
> kgdb should be reading 0, but I can't check it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
> ---
>
> arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h | 2 ++
> arch/x86/kernel/kgdb.c | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h
> @@ -421,7 +421,9 @@ struct thread_struct {
> unsigned short fsindex;
> unsigned short gsindex;
> #endif
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
> unsigned long ip;
> +#endif
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> unsigned long fs;
> #endif
Do these make struct thread_struct behave better in cachelines (smaller,
less aliasing)? Can we really fit more in the slab du jour?
Otherwise it seems like we're littering these structs with #ifdefs
and not really saving anything. If these #ifdefs don't save any space why not
just put in a comment:
> unsigned long ip; /* Used only on i386 */
Or maybe even:
union {
unsigned long ip; /* Used only on i386 */
unsigned long fs; /* Used only on x86_64 */
};
Cheers,
-Matt Helsley
--
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