The patch titled
Subject: include/linux/cache.h: expand documentation over __read_mostly
has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename was
mm-expand-documentation-over-__read_mostly.patch
This patch was dropped because it was merged into mainline or a subsystem tree
------------------------------------------------------
From: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: include/linux/cache.h: expand documentation over __read_mostly
__read_mostly can easily be misused by folks, its not meant for just
read-only data. There are performance reasons for using it, but we also
don't provide any guidance about its use. Provide a bit more guidance
over its use.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200507161424.2584-1-mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Rafael Aquini <aquini@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
include/linux/cache.h | 10 ++++++++--
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- a/include/linux/cache.h~mm-expand-documentation-over-__read_mostly
+++ a/include/linux/cache.h
@@ -15,8 +15,14 @@
/*
* __read_mostly is used to keep rarely changing variables out of frequently
- * updated cachelines. If an architecture doesn't support it, ignore the
- * hint.
+ * updated cachelines. Its use should be reserved for data that is used
+ * frequently in hot paths. Performance traces can help decide when to use
+ * this. You want __read_mostly data to be tightly packed, so that in the
+ * best case multiple frequently read variables for a hot path will be next
+ * to each other in order to reduce the number of cachelines needed to
+ * execute a critical path. We should be mindful and selective of its use.
+ * ie: if you're going to use it please supply a *good* justification in your
+ * commit log
*/
#ifndef __read_mostly
#define __read_mostly
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx are
