From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 15:18:29 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] x86_64: Use generic percpu Message-ID: <20071230141829.GA28415@elte.hu> References: <20071228001046.854702000@sgi.com> <20071228001047.556634000@sgi.com> <200712281354.52453.ak@suse.de> <47757311.5050503@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47757311.5050503@sgi.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Mike Travis Cc: Andi Kleen , Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rusty Russell , tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, "H. Peter Anvin" List-ID: * Mike Travis wrote: > > Also for such changes .text size comparisons before/after are a good > > idea. > > x86_64-defconfig: > > pre-percpu post-percpu > 159373 .init.text +3 .init.text > 1411137 .rodata +8 .rodata > 3629056 .text +48 .text > 7057383 Total +59 Total ok, that looks like really minimal impact, so i'm in favor of merging this into arch/x86 - and the unification it does later on is nice too. to get more test feedback: what would be the best way to get this tested in x86.git in a standalone way? Can i just pick up these 10 patches and remove all the non-x86 arch changes, and expect it to work - or are the other percpu preparatory/cleanup patches in -mm needed too? Ingo -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org