Eric Dumazet wrote: > Ingo Molnar a écrit : > >> Still looks like a bug if it causes a breakage (linker error) on IA64, >> and if the 'fix' (i'd call it a workaround) causes a (small but nonzero) >> performance regression on other architectures. >> > > True, but this also save some amount of ram for some distro kernels. > > If we keep this static NR_CPUS thing, we might be able to free > the end of table, for other per_cpu users ? > > if (nr_cpus_ids < NR_CPUS) { > per_cpu_free_static_zone(&update_shares_data[nr_cpus_ids], > sizeof(long)*(NR_CPUS - nr_cpus_ids)); > } That's doable but Considering that the users of NR_CPUS are pretty few (and should be kept that way), I think it would be better to just use dynamic allocation, which no longer incurs any major performance difference (the only difference is constant offset vs. pointer in a variable), for those cases. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
![]() |