[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120217115627.GA25601@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:56:27 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Kevin Winchester <kjwinchester@...il.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Nick Bowler <nbowler@...iptictech.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86: Move per cpu cpu_llc_shared_map to a field in
struct cpuinfo_x86
* Kevin Winchester <kjwinchester@...il.com> wrote:
> Commit 141168c36cde ("x86: Simplify code by removing a !SMP #ifdefs from
> 'struct cpuinfo_x86'") caused the compilation error:
>
> mce_amd.c:(.cpuinit.text+0x4723): undefined reference to 'cpu_llc_shared_map'
>
> by removing an #ifdef CONFIG_SMP around a block containing a reference
> to cpu_llc_shared_map. Rather than replace the #ifdef, move
> cpu_llc_shared_map to be a new cpumask_t field llc_shared_map in
> struct cpuinfo_x86 and adjust all references to cpu_llc_shared_map.
>
> The size effects on various kernels are as follows:
>
> text data bss dec hex filename
> 5281572 513296 1044480 6839348 685c34 vmlinux.up
> 5281572 513296 1044480 6839348 685c34 vmlinux.up.patched
> 5548860 516792 1110016 7175668 6d7df4 vmlinux.smp.2
> 5548837 516792 1110016 7175645 6d7ddd vmlinux.smp.2.patched
> 5595965 706840 1310720 7613525 742c55 vmlinux.smp.max
> 5595876 707880 1310720 7614476 74300c vmlinux.smp.max.patched
>
> It can be seen that this change has no effect on UP, a minor effect for
> SMP with Max 2 CPUs, and a more substantial but still not overly large
> effect for MAXSMP.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kevin Winchester <kjwinchester@...il.com>
> ---
>
> I'm still wondering if I should I give the same treatment to:
>
> cpu_sibling_map
> cpu_core_map
> cpu_llc_id
> cpu_number
>
> or is that going too far?
>
> arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h | 1 +
> arch/x86/include/asm/smp.h | 6 ------
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_cacheinfo.c | 4 ++--
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_amd.c | 7 ++++---
> arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c | 15 ++++++---------
> arch/x86/xen/smp.c | 1 -
> 6 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
Yeah, I'd definitely give them the same treatment.
Would you like to update your series? I'd suggest you keep patch
#1 in place, as it's already probably reasonably well tested.
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