on 12/07/2010 00:15 Jeff Roberson said the following: > > On Sun, 11 Jul 2010, Andriy Gapon wrote: > >> >> [oops, sorry, this is not a dup - corrected some omissions/mistakes] >> >> on 11/07/2010 14:54 Andriy Gapon said the following: >>> For completeness, here is a patch that simply drops the inline >>> assembly and the >>> comment about it, and GCC-generated assembly and its diff: >>> http://people.freebsd.org/~avg/dpcpu/pcpu.new.patch >>> http://people.freebsd.org/~avg/dpcpu/dpcpu.new.s >>> http://people.freebsd.org/~avg/dpcpu/dpcpu.new.diff >>> >>> As was speculated above, the only thing really changed is section >>> alignment >>> (from 128 to 4). >> >> After making the above analysis I wondered why we require set_pcpu >> section >> alignment at all. After all, it's not used as loaded, data from the >> section >> gets copied into special per-cpu memory areas. So, logically, it's >> those areas >> that need to be aligned, not the section. > > I appreciate your analysis but I don't understand the motivation for > changing working code.
Primary reason is that the "working code" produces zero-sized unused/unnecessary pcpu_set sections. See the subject line. As to why I care about those sections - please see the start of this thread. P.S. Short summary: there is no reason to have zero sized sections; some tools either do not expect them or handle them suboptimally. -- Andriy Gapon _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
