Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755467AbYGIWCO (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jul 2008 18:02:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751593AbYGIWB7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jul 2008 18:01:59 -0400 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:48281 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751502AbYGIWB6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jul 2008 18:01:58 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Mike Travis Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , "H. Peter Anvin" , Christoph Lameter , Jack Steiner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20080709165129.292635000@polaris-admin.engr.sgi.com> <4875301D.20805@sgi.com> Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:55:29 -0700 In-Reply-To: <4875301D.20805@sgi.com> (Mike Travis's message of "Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:39:41 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 24.130.11.59 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa01 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;Mike Travis X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Report: * -1.8 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG * -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0028] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa01 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] * 0.0 XM_SPF_Neutral SPF-Neutral Subject: Re: [RFC 00/15] x86_64: Optimize percpu accesses X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 (built Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:44:12 +0100) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mgr1.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 823 Lines: 22 Mike Travis writes: > Hi Eric, > > There is one pda op that I was not able to remove. Most likely it can be > recoded > but it was a bit over my expertise. Most likely the "pda_offset(field)" can be > replaced with "per_cpu_var(field)" [per_cpu__##field], but for > "_proxy_pda.field" > I wasn't sure about. If you notice we never use %1. My reading would be we just have the +m there to tell the compiler we may be changing the field. So just a reference to the per_cpu_var directly should be sufficient. Although "memory" may actually be enough. Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/