[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: softirq parameters
    On Sun, 04 Aug 2002 22:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
    "David S. Miller" <> wrote:

    > From: george anzinger <>
    > Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 10:38:23 -0700
    > Matthew Wilcox wrote:
    > > what do you guys think about this patch? nobody's using the data argument
    > > to the softirq routines, but most of the routines want to know which
    > > CPU they're running on.
    > I would vote no on this. While no one is currently using
    > the data argument, it would be _hard_ to replace it if it
    > were needed. The cpu, on the other hand, is available
    > regardless of it being passed or not and thus does not
    > _need_ to be passed.
    > Furthermore, this is one of the most important hot paths in
    > the entire kernel, any simplification and or improvement
    > in code generated to implement these paths is desirable.
    > I fully supporty Matthew's change.

    Partially agree. Removing all args might be worthwhile. But all these
    softirqs use the "cpu" arg to access per-cpu data, which should be
    changed to use the per_cpu_data mechanism anyway, which removes the
    point of the arg.

    Things haven't been changed over because I haven't pushed the per-cpu
    interface changes (required for some archs 8() to Linus yet. But you'll
    want them so we can save space (you only need allocate per-cpu data for
    cpus where cpu_possible(i) is true).

    there are those who do and those who hang on and you don't see too
    many doers quoting their contemporaries. -- Larry McVoy
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:27    [W:0.023 / U:18.724 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site