Re: [PATCH] consolidate WARN_...ONCE() static variables

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 11:09:40 +0000
"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >>> On 05.01.12 at 00:03, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 15:53:49 +0000
> > "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> 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 op. Put these variables into their own section, outside
> >> of half way frequently used memory range.
> >> 
>
> ...
>
> > printk_once() should also be converted.  And ata_print_version_once(),
> > if it insists on continuing to exist.
> 
> I disagree for those (and intentionally didn't touch printk_once();
> wasn't aware of the other) - at best this could get marked
> __read_mostly, but that's not the subject of this patch.

Confused.  It is exactly the subject of the patch?

> > Also rcu_lockdep_assert().
> 
> This one I mostly agree - the access is at least sitting past the
> debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() check, albeit not in an unlikely()
> code path.

What does "unlikely" have to do with any of this?

I'm suspecting that there is some changelog crappiness going on here. 
What didn't you tell us?


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Media]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Photo]     [Yosemite News]    [Yosemite Photos]    [Free Online Dating]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

Add to Google Powered by Linux