From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail202.messagelabs.com (mail202.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.227]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D56958D0080 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 04:58:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:58:09 +0000 From: Mel Gorman Subject: Re: [PATCH] set_pgdat_percpu_threshold() don't use for_each_online_cpu Message-ID: <20101116095809.GO27362@csn.ul.ie> References: <1288169256-7174-2-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <20101028100920.5d4ce413.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20101114163727.BEE0.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20101115102617.GK27362@csn.ul.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Christoph Lameter Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Andrew Morton , Shaohua Li , David Rientjes , LKML , Linux-MM , Tejun Heo List-ID: On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 08:04:23AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Mon, 15 Nov 2010, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > With recent per-cpu allocator changes, are we guaranteed that the per-cpu > > structures exist and are valid? > > We always guarantee that all per cpu areas for all possible cpus exist. > That has always been the case. There was a discussion about changing > that though. Could be difficult given the need for additional locking. > In that case, I do not have any more concerns about the patch. It's unfortunate that more per-cpu structures will have to be updated but I doubt it'll be noticable. -- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org