Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 7 Aug 2002 15:24:23 +1000 | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: softirq parameters |
| |
On Sun, 04 Aug 2002 22:37:46 -0700 (PDT) "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com> wrote:
> From: george anzinger <george@mvista.com> > 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).
Clear? Rusty. -- 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |