On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 03:15:50PM +0000, Christopher Lameter wrote: > On Mon, 25 Feb 2019, dennis@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > @@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ static struct pcpu_chunk *pcpu_create_chunk(gfp_t gfp) > > > pcpu_set_page_chunk(nth_page(pages, i), chunk); > > > > > > chunk->data = pages; > > > - chunk->base_addr = page_address(pages) - pcpu_group_offsets[0]; > > > + chunk->base_addr = page_address(pages); > > > > > > spin_lock_irqsave(&pcpu_lock, flags); > > > pcpu_chunk_populated(chunk, 0, nr_pages, false); > > > -- > > > 2.16.4 > > > > > > > While I do think you're right, creating a chunk is not a part of the > > critical path and subtracting 0 is incredibly minor overhead. So I'd > > rather keep the code as is to maintain consistency between percpu-vm.c > > and percpu-km.c. > > Well it is confusing if there the expression is there but never used. It > is clearer with the patch. > Okay. I'll apply it with your ack if that's fine. Thanks, Dennis
