On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 11:09:40 +0000 "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> On 05.01.12 at 00:03, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 15:53:49 +0000 > > "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Due to the alignment of following variables, these typically consume > >> more than just the single byte that 'bool' requires, and as there are > >> a few hundred instances, the cache pollution (not so much the waste of > >> memory) sums op. Put these variables into their own section, outside > >> of half way frequently used memory range. > >> > > ... > > > printk_once() should also be converted. And ata_print_version_once(), > > if it insists on continuing to exist. > > I disagree for those (and intentionally didn't touch printk_once(); > wasn't aware of the other) - at best this could get marked > __read_mostly, but that's not the subject of this patch. Confused. It is exactly the subject of the patch? > > Also rcu_lockdep_assert(). > > This one I mostly agree - the access is at least sitting past the > debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() check, albeit not in an unlikely() > code path. What does "unlikely" have to do with any of this? I'm suspecting that there is some changelog crappiness going on here. What didn't you tell us? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
