From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <477916ED.8010602@sgi.com> Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:21:01 -0800 From: Mike Travis MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] x86_64: Use generic percpu References: <20071228001046.854702000@sgi.com> <20071228001047.556634000@sgi.com> <200712281354.52453.ak@suse.de> <47757311.5050503@sgi.com> <20071230141829.GA28415@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20071230141829.GA28415@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Ingo Molnar 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: Ingo Molnar wrote: > * 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 I've tested some x86_64 configs but the UP model is currently broken so I haven't been able to test that. (the "fs/nfs/super.c" build problem with TASK_NORMAL and TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE undefined.) Thanks, Mike -- 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