From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752306Ab2BQL4m (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Feb 2012 06:56:42 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:43380 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752148Ab2BQL4l (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Feb 2012 06:56:41 -0500 Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:56:27 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Kevin Winchester Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Borislav Petkov , Randy Dunlap , Nick Bowler , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86: Move per cpu cpu_llc_shared_map to a field in struct cpuinfo_x86 Message-ID: <20120217115627.GA25601@elte.hu> References: <20120212111914.GC21493@elte.hu> <1329178356-16645-1-git-send-email-kjwinchester@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1329178356-16645-1-git-send-email-kjwinchester@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.3.1 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Kevin Winchester wrote: > Commit 141168c36cde ("x86: Simplify code by removing a !SMP #ifdefs from > 'struct cpuinfo_x86'") caused the compilation error: > > mce_amd.c:(.cpuinit.text+0x4723): undefined reference to 'cpu_llc_shared_map' > > by removing an #ifdef CONFIG_SMP around a block containing a reference > to cpu_llc_shared_map. Rather than replace the #ifdef, move > cpu_llc_shared_map to be a new cpumask_t field llc_shared_map in > struct cpuinfo_x86 and adjust all references to cpu_llc_shared_map. > > The size effects on various kernels are as follows: > > text data bss dec hex filename > 5281572 513296 1044480 6839348 685c34 vmlinux.up > 5281572 513296 1044480 6839348 685c34 vmlinux.up.patched > 5548860 516792 1110016 7175668 6d7df4 vmlinux.smp.2 > 5548837 516792 1110016 7175645 6d7ddd vmlinux.smp.2.patched > 5595965 706840 1310720 7613525 742c55 vmlinux.smp.max > 5595876 707880 1310720 7614476 74300c vmlinux.smp.max.patched > > It can be seen that this change has no effect on UP, a minor effect for > SMP with Max 2 CPUs, and a more substantial but still not overly large > effect for MAXSMP. > > Signed-off-by: Kevin Winchester > --- > > I'm still wondering if I should I give the same treatment to: > > cpu_sibling_map > cpu_core_map > cpu_llc_id > cpu_number > > or is that going too far? > > arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h | 1 + > arch/x86/include/asm/smp.h | 6 ------ > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_cacheinfo.c | 4 ++-- > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_amd.c | 7 ++++--- > arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c | 15 ++++++--------- > arch/x86/xen/smp.c | 1 - > 6 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) Yeah, I'd definitely give them the same treatment. Would you like to update your series? I'd suggest you keep patch #1 in place, as it's already probably reasonably well tested. Thanks, Ingo