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 11:31:51 -0500
From:   Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>
To:     Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc:     "dennis@kernel.org" <dennis@kernel.org>,
        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]
Message-ID: <20190226163151.GA47262@dennisz-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
References: <20190224132518.20586-1-peng.fan@nxp.com>
 <20190224132518.20586-2-peng.fan@nxp.com>
 <20190225151616.GB49611@dennisz-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
 <010001692a605709-407cf476-e7b6-43be-8551-66c54059e92f-000000@email.amazonses.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <010001692a605709-407cf476-e7b6-43be-8551-66c54059e92f-000000@email.amazonses.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 03:15:50PM +0000, Christopher Lameter wrote:
> 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.
> 

Okay. I'll apply it with your ack if that's fine.

Thanks,
Dennis