[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20130415212914.936f903a.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:29:14 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Pan, Zhenjie" <zhenjie.pan@...el.com>
Cc: "a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"paulus@...ba.org" <paulus@...ba.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"acme@...stprotocols.net" <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
"dzickus@...hat.com" <dzickus@...hat.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Liu, Chuansheng" <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NMI: fix NMI period is not correct when cpu frequency
changes issue.
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 03:45:15 +0000 "Pan, Zhenjie" <zhenjie.pan@...el.com> wrote:
> > Overall the patch looks desirable, but it increases the kernel size by several
> > hundred bytes when CONFIG_CPU_FREQ=n. It should produce no code in
> > this case! Take a look at the magic in register_hotcpu_notifier(), the way in
> > which it causes all the code to be removed by the compiler in the
> > CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU=n case. That trick can be used here.
>
> I have checked if CONFIG_CPU_FREQ=n, cpufreq_register_notifier() will be a blank function.
> So I think it will not increases the kernel size.
I tested it. The patch adds ~350 bytes of dead code.
This is partly an infrastructural problem: unlike
register_hotcpu_notifier(), the cpufreq notifier code lacks the
infrastructure with which we can prevent this problem.
--
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