Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Feb 2012 00:12:10 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] consolidate WARN_...ONCE() static variables |
| |
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:02:40 +0000 "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >>> On 28.02.12 at 08:44, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > 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? > > Sorry, Andrew, but this makes no sense to me.
I really don't care - anywhere you like. Just the darn changelog, if nowhere else.
I still don't have an answer to my question :( Some statement describing what the new section is *for*. Seems a pretty important thing?
| |