[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110214122728.GC15860@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 13:27:28 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>, hpa@...or.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, tglx@...utronix.de, andi@...stfloor.org,
roland@...hat.com, rth@...hat.com, masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, avi@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net,
sam@...nborg.org, ddaney@...iumnetworks.com,
michael@...erman.id.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] jump label: 2.6.38 updates
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 22:38 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > So why can't we make that jump_label_entry::refcount and
> > jump_label_key::state an atomic_t and be done with it?
>
> So I had a bit of a poke at this because I didn't quite understand why
> all that stuff was as it was. I applied both Jason's patches and then
> basically rewrote kernel/jump_label.c just for kicks ;-)
>
> I haven't tried compiling this, let alone running it, but provided I
> didn't actually forget anything the storage per key is now 16 bytes when
> modules are disabled and 24 * (1 + mods) bytes for when they are
> enabled. The old code had 64 + 40 * mods bytes.
>
> I still need to clean up the static_branch_else bits and look at !x86
> aside from the already mentioned bits.. but what do people think?
[...]
> 15 files changed, 333 insertions(+), 456 deletions(-)
The diffstat win alone makes me want this :-)
Thanks,
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