On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> It was demonstrated useful for some specific cases, like context switch early
> fetch on IA64. But I agree the prefetch on each list_for_each() is probably
> a bad idea and should be removed. Will also help code size.
Looks like sum_vm_events() is only eve
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> I don't recall anyone ever demonstrating that prefetch is useful in-kernel.
vmstat: remove prefetch
Remove the prefetch logic in order to avoid touching impossible per cpu
areas.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
mm/vmstat.c
On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 03:42:13PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:22:56 -0800 (PST)
> Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > > The prefetch however might still need some work - we can indeed do
> > > prefetch() ag
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:22:56 -0800 (PST)
Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > The prefetch however might still need some work - we can indeed do
> > prefetch() against a not-possible CPU's memory here. And I do recall that
> > 4-5 years a
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> The prefetch however might still need some work - we can indeed do
> prefetch() against a not-possible CPU's memory here. And I do recall that
> 4-5 years ago we did have a CPU (one of mine, iirc) which would oops when
> prefetching from a bad address.
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:12:41 -0800
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 23:16:28 +0100
> Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 01:50:53PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Change loops controlled by 'for (i = 0; i < NR_CPUS; i++)' to use
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> hm. Has anyone any evidence that we're actually touching
> not-possible-cpu's memory here?
I saw it in acpi when the __cpu_offset() pointers become zero. I have
never seen it in vmstat.c. We do not need the vmstat.c fix.
-
To unsubscribe from this lis
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 23:16:28 +0100
Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 01:50:53PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Change loops controlled by 'for (i = 0; i < NR_CPUS; i++)' to use
> > 'for_each_possible_cpu(i)' when there's a _remote possibility_ of
> > dereferencin
On 27 Nov 2007 at 13:50, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Change loops controlled by 'for (i = 0; i < NR_CPUS; i++)' to use
> 'for_each_possible_cpu(i)' when there's a _remote possibility_ of
> dereferencing a non-allocated per_cpu variable involved.
actually, it's not that remote, it happens every tim
On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 01:50:53PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Change loops controlled by 'for (i = 0; i < NR_CPUS; i++)' to use
> 'for_each_possible_cpu(i)' when there's a _remote possibility_ of
> dereferencing a non-allocated per_cpu variable involved.
>
> All files except mm/vmstat.c are
Change loops controlled by 'for (i = 0; i < NR_CPUS; i++)' to use
'for_each_possible_cpu(i)' when there's a _remote possibility_ of
dereferencing a non-allocated per_cpu variable involved.
All files except mm/vmstat.c are x86 arch.
Based on 2.6.24-rc3-mm1 .
Thanks to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for pointi
11 matches
Mail list logo
