Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 26 Feb 2019 15:15:50 +0000
From:   Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>
To:     "dennis@kernel.org" <dennis@kernel.org>
cc:     Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>, "tj@kernel.org" <tj@kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "van.freenix@gmail.com" <van.freenix@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] percpu: km: no need to consider
 pcpu_group_offsets[0]
In-Reply-To: <20190225151616.GB49611@dennisz-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Message-ID: <010001692a605709-407cf476-e7b6-43be-8551-66c54059e92f-000000@email.amazonses.com>
References: <20190224132518.20586-1-peng.fan@nxp.com> <20190224132518.20586-2-peng.fan@nxp.com> <20190225151616.GB49611@dennisz-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Feedback-ID: 1.us-east-1.fQZZZ0Xtj2+TD7V5apTT/NrT6QKuPgzCT/IC7XYgDKI=:AmazonSES
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 25 Feb 2019, dennis@kernel.org wrote:

> > @@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ static struct pcpu_chunk *pcpu_create_chunk(gfp_t gfp)
> >  		pcpu_set_page_chunk(nth_page(pages, i), chunk);
> >
> >  	chunk->data = pages;
> > -	chunk->base_addr = page_address(pages) - pcpu_group_offsets[0];
> > +	chunk->base_addr = page_address(pages);
> >
> >  	spin_lock_irqsave(&pcpu_lock, flags);
> >  	pcpu_chunk_populated(chunk, 0, nr_pages, false);
> > --
> > 2.16.4
> >
>
> While I do think you're right, creating a chunk is not a part of the
> critical path and subtracting 0 is incredibly minor overhead. So I'd
> rather keep the code as is to maintain consistency between percpu-vm.c
> and percpu-km.c.

Well it is confusing if there the expression is there but never used. It
is clearer with the patch.