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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site