[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180403075225.69ad3d25@mschwideX1>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 07:52:25 +0200
From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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, 29 Mar 2018 20:08:36 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 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?
The space in lowcore is quite limited, for zArch the structure is 8K with
many pre-defined fields. I fear that putting all of the static per-cpu
stuff in there is too much.
So far I used the lowcore as optimization for selected per-cpu fields
which are performance relevant.
--
blue skies,
Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists