[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180329180836.GS4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 20:08:36 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
"James E . J . Bottomley" <jejb@...isc-linux.org>,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] softirq: Remove __ARCH_SET_SOFTIRQ_PENDING
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 04:53:43PM +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> The lowcore optimization for softirq_pending field is not really needed,
> just nice to have. But if there is a strong reason to make a common
> definition for it we can certainly do that.
A slightly related question; would it make sense to move all kernel
static per-cpu stuff into lowcore, or is that asking for too much
trickery?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists