From: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
To: Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>,
penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm, slub: unify access to s->cpu_slab by replacing raw_cpu_ptr() with this_cpu_ptr()
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 14:49:20 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181025144920.ics5alndk37rpm4s@master> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <01000166ab8007d8-7d1d4733-c13d-4e9d-b485-ae0846a5d78c-000000@email.amazonses.com>
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 01:53:06PM +0000, Christopher Lameter wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Oct 2018, Wei Yang wrote:
>
>> In current code, we use two forms to access s->cpu_slab
>>
>> * raw_cpu_ptr()
>> * this_cpu_ptr()
>
>Ok the only difference is that for CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT we will do the
>debug checks twice.
>
>That tolerable I think but is this really a worthwhile change?
Agree.
My purpose is to make unify the access, looks easy for me to read the
code.
You can decide whether to change this or not :-)
--
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-25 14:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-25 9:44 [PATCH 1/3] mm, slub: not retrieve cpu_slub again in new_slab_objects() Wei Yang
2018-10-25 9:44 ` [PATCH 2/3] mm, slub: unify access to s->cpu_slab by replacing raw_cpu_ptr() with this_cpu_ptr() Wei Yang
2018-10-25 13:53 ` Christopher Lameter
2018-10-25 14:49 ` Wei Yang [this message]
2018-10-25 9:44 ` [PATCH 3/3] mm, slub: make the comment of put_cpu_partial() complete Wei Yang
2018-10-25 13:41 ` Christopher Lameter
2018-12-30 8:25 ` Wei Yang
2018-10-25 13:46 ` [PATCH 1/3] mm, slub: not retrieve cpu_slub again in new_slab_objects() Christopher Lameter
2018-10-25 14:54 ` Wei Yang
2018-10-26 4:33 ` Wei Yang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20181025144920.ics5alndk37rpm4s@master \
--to=richard.weiyang@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).