Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 27 Feb 2012 23:44:51 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] consolidate WARN_...ONCE() static variables |
| |
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 07:41:54 +0000 "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >>> On 28.02.12 at 01:03, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:10:34 +0000 > > "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote: > > > >> Due to the alignment of following variables, these typically consume > >> more than just the single byte that 'bool' requires, and as there are > >> a few hundred instances, the cache pollution (not so much the waste of > >> memory) sums up. Put these variables into their own section, outside > >> of any half way frequently used memory range. > >> > >> v2: Do the same also to the __warned variable of rcu_lockdep_assert(). > >> (Don't, however, include the ones used by printk_once() and alike, as > >> they can potentially be hot.) > > > > I have a bad feeling that I still don't understand this patch. Ho hum. > > > > What are the rules for the new .data.unlikely section? When should > > people put variables into this section? Perhaps we can document this > > somewhere? > > If I knew the "where" part of this, I could put together a few sentences. > I just grep-ed through Documentation/, without finding e.g. any rules > or guidelines for using {,un}likely()... >
At the definition site in vmlinux.lds?
| |