[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B2F2820.5030904@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:47:44 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [this_cpu_xx V8 07/16] Module handling: Use this_cpu_xx to dynamically
allocate counters
Hello,
On 12/19/2009 07:26 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Use cpu ops to deal with the per cpu data instead of a local_t. Reduces memory
> requirements, cache footprint and decreases cycle counts.
>
> The this_cpu_xx operations are also used for !SMP mode. Otherwise we could
> not drop the use of __module_ref_addr() which would make per cpu data handling
> complicated. this_cpu_xx operations have their own fallback for !SMP.
>
> The last hold out of users of local_t is the tracing ringbuffer after this patch
> has been applied.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Please keep Rusty Russell cc'd on module changes.
> Index: linux-2.6/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c 2009-12-18 13:13:24.000000000 -0600
> +++ linux-2.6/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c 2009-12-18 14:15:57.000000000 -0600
> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
> #include <linux/hardirq.h>
> #include <linux/kmemcheck.h>
> #include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <asm/local.h>
This doesn't belong to this patch, right? I stripped this part out,
added Cc: to Rusty and applied 1, 2, 7 and 8 to percpu branch. I'll
post the updated patch here.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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