Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
>> On Thu 14-06-12 19:26:18, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> > From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> > include/linux/hugetlb.h | 2 +-
>> > mm/hugetlb.c | 2 +-
>> > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/include/linux/hugetlb.h b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
>> > index 9650bb1..0f0877e 100644
>> > --- a/include/linux/hugetlb.h
>> > +++ b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
>> > @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ struct hugepage_subpool {
>> > };
>> >
>> > extern spinlock_t hugetlb_lock;
>> > -extern int hugetlb_max_hstate;
>> > +extern int hugetlb_max_hstate __read_mostly;
>>
>> It should be used only for definition
>
> And a rationale needs to be given. Since this patch had no effect, I would
> think that the patch is just the expression of the belief of the patcher
> that something would improve performancewise.
>
> But there seems to no need for this patch otherwise someone would have
> verified that the patch has the intended beneficial effect on performance.
>
The variable is never modified after boot.
-aneesh
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>