On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 06:44:22PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 30 March 2015 at 18:17, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > No, I means something else with that. We can remove the > > tvec_base::running_timer field. Everything that uses that can use > > tbase_running() AFAICT. > > Okay, there is one instance which still needs it. > > migrate_timers(): > > BUG_ON(old_base->running_timer); > > What I wasn't sure about it is if we get can drop this statement or not. > If we decide not to drop it, then we can convert running_timer into a bool. Yeah, so that _should_ not trigger (obviously), and while I agree with the sentiment of sanity checks, I'm not sure its worth keeping that variable around just for that. Anyway, while I'm looking at struct tvec_base I notice the cpu member should be second after the lock, that'll save 8 bytes on the structure on 64bit machines. -- 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>