[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130618123741.GC17619@somewhere.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:37:42 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
trinity@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] hw_breakpoint: Introduce "struct bp_cpuinfo"
On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 09:50:57PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> This patch simply moves all per-cpu variables into the new single
> per-cpu "struct bp_cpuinfo".
>
> To me this looks more logical and clean, but this can also simplify
> the further potential changes. In particular, I do not think this
> memory should be per-cpu, it is never used "locally". After this
> change it is trivial to turn it into, say, bootmem[nr_cpu_ids].
>
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
I'm ok with the patch because it's indeed more logical and clean to pack the info
to a single struct.
But I'm not sure why you think using per-cpu is a problem. It's not only
deemed for optimized local uses, it's also convenient for allocations and
de-allocation, or static definitions. I'm not sure why bootmem would make
more sense.
Other than this in the changelog, the patch is nice, thanks!
Acked-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
--
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