[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120209080648.GI18387@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:06:48 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Nick Bowler <nbowler@...iptictech.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kevin Winchester <kjwinchester@...il.com>
Subject: Re: MCE, AMD: Hide smp-only code around CONFIG_SMP
* Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/smp.h
> @@ -33,8 +33,15 @@ static inline bool cpu_has_ht_siblings(void)
>
> DECLARE_PER_CPU(cpumask_var_t, cpu_sibling_map);
> DECLARE_PER_CPU(cpumask_var_t, cpu_core_map);
> -/* cpus sharing the last level cache: */
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +/* CPUs sharing the last level cache: */
> DECLARE_PER_CPU(cpumask_var_t, cpu_llc_shared_map);
> +#else
> +static DECLARE_BITMAP(cpu_llc_shared_bits, NR_CPUS) __read_mostly = { [0] = 1UL };
> +static struct cpumask *const cpu_llc_shared_map = to_cpumask(cpu_llc_shared_bits);
> +#endif
Why not just expose it like on SMP?
We want to *reduce* the specialness of UP, not increase it - one
more word of .data and .text does not matter much - UP is
becoming more and more an oddball, rarely tested config. By the
time these changes hit any real boxes it will be even more
oddball.
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