[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YxdT5w9Qd5SxK1wl@yury-laptop>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2022 07:06:31 -0700
From: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Sander Vanheule <sander@...nheule.net>,
Alexey Klimov <klimov.linux@...il.com>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] smp: don't declare nr_cpu_ids if NR_CPUS == 1
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 10:53:53AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 04:08:16PM -0700, Yury Norov wrote:
> > SMP and NR_CPUS are independent options, hence nr_cpu_ids may be
> > declared even if NR_CPUS == 1, which is useless.
>
> I'm thikning you're fixing the wrong problem here.
I'm removing dead code. If NR_CPUS == 1, nr_cpu_ids does exist, exported
as an interface variable, but never normally reached, because in some
other piece of code (not even in smp.h) it's declared conditionally.
> Also who the heck
> cares about SMP=y NR_CPUS=1 anyway?
Build bots.
> Why do we need extra source complexity for this?
To have effective code generation for UP builds.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists