lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] x86: Move per cpu cpu_llc_shared_map to a field in struct cpuinfo_x86

    * Kevin Winchester <kjwinchester@gmail.com> wrote:

    > Commit 141168c36cde ("x86: Simplify code by removing a !SMP #ifdefs from
    > 'struct cpuinfo_x86'") caused the compilation error:
    >
    > mce_amd.c:(.cpuinit.text+0x4723): undefined reference to 'cpu_llc_shared_map'
    >
    > by removing an #ifdef CONFIG_SMP around a block containing a reference
    > to cpu_llc_shared_map. Rather than replace the #ifdef, move
    > cpu_llc_shared_map to be a new cpumask_t field llc_shared_map in
    > struct cpuinfo_x86 and adjust all references to cpu_llc_shared_map.
    >
    > The size effects on various kernels are as follows:
    >
    > text data bss dec hex filename
    > 5281572 513296 1044480 6839348 685c34 vmlinux.up
    > 5281572 513296 1044480 6839348 685c34 vmlinux.up.patched
    > 5548860 516792 1110016 7175668 6d7df4 vmlinux.smp.2
    > 5548837 516792 1110016 7175645 6d7ddd vmlinux.smp.2.patched
    > 5595965 706840 1310720 7613525 742c55 vmlinux.smp.max
    > 5595876 707880 1310720 7614476 74300c vmlinux.smp.max.patched
    >
    > It can be seen that this change has no effect on UP, a minor effect for
    > SMP with Max 2 CPUs, and a more substantial but still not overly large
    > effect for MAXSMP.
    >
    > Signed-off-by: Kevin Winchester <kjwinchester@gmail.com>
    > ---
    >
    > I'm still wondering if I should I give the same treatment to:
    >
    > cpu_sibling_map
    > cpu_core_map
    > cpu_llc_id
    > cpu_number
    >
    > or is that going too far?
    >
    > arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h | 1 +
    > arch/x86/include/asm/smp.h | 6 ------
    > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_cacheinfo.c | 4 ++--
    > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_amd.c | 7 ++++---
    > arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c | 15 ++++++---------
    > arch/x86/xen/smp.c | 1 -
    > 6 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)

    Yeah, I'd definitely give them the same treatment.

    Would you like to update your series? I'd suggest you keep patch
    #1 in place, as it's already probably reasonably well tested.

    Thanks,

    Ingo


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-02-17 12:59    [W:0.024 / U:97.804 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site