[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101116095809.GO27362@csn.ul.ie>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:58:09 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] set_pgdat_percpu_threshold() don't use
for_each_online_cpu
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 08:04:23AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2010, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> > With recent per-cpu allocator changes, are we guaranteed that the per-cpu
> > structures exist and are valid?
>
> We always guarantee that all per cpu areas for all possible cpus exist.
> That has always been the case. There was a discussion about changing
> that though. Could be difficult given the need for additional locking.
>
In that case, I do not have any more concerns about the patch. It's
unfortunate that more per-cpu structures will have to be updated but I
doubt it'll be noticable.
--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
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