[typo in subject "rebudant"] On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 06:21:38PM +0800, Pingfan Liu wrote: > There are two identical implementations of setup_per_cpu_areas() in > mm/percpu.c and drivers/base/arch_numa.c. > > Hence removing the one in arch_numa.c. And let arm64 drop > HAVE_SETUP_PER_CPU_AREA. > > Signed-off-by: Pingfan Liu <kernelf...@gmail.com> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com> > Cc: Will Deacon <w...@kernel.org> > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <raf...@kernel.org> > Cc: Atish Patra <atish.pa...@wdc.com> > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > To: linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org > --- > arch/arm64/Kconfig | 4 ---- > drivers/base/arch_numa.c | 22 ---------------------- > 2 files changed, 26 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > index 1f212b47a48a..d4bf8be0c3d5 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > @@ -1022,10 +1022,6 @@ config USE_PERCPU_NUMA_NODE_ID > def_bool y > depends on NUMA > > -config HAVE_SETUP_PER_CPU_AREA > - def_bool y > - depends on NUMA > - > config NEED_PER_CPU_EMBED_FIRST_CHUNK > def_bool y > depends on NUMA > diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_numa.c b/drivers/base/arch_numa.c > index 4cc4e117727d..23e1e419a83d 100644 > --- a/drivers/base/arch_numa.c > +++ b/drivers/base/arch_numa.c > @@ -167,28 +167,6 @@ static void __init pcpu_fc_free(void *ptr, size_t size) > { > memblock_free_early(__pa(ptr), size); > } > - > -void __init setup_per_cpu_areas(void) > -{ > - unsigned long delta; > - unsigned int cpu; > - int rc; > - > - /* > - * Always reserve area for module percpu variables. That's > - * what the legacy allocator did. > - */ > - rc = pcpu_embed_first_chunk(PERCPU_MODULE_RESERVE, > - PERCPU_DYNAMIC_RESERVE, PAGE_SIZE, > - pcpu_cpu_distance, > - pcpu_fc_alloc, pcpu_fc_free);
This doesn't look identical to the version in mm/percpu.c -- that one passes NULL instead of 'pcpu_cpu_distance' and tries to allocate the pcpu memory on the relevant NUMA nodes. In fact, if you could remove this function, you could probably remove the whole HAVE_SETUP_PER_CPU_AREA block here as the other functions are just used as helpers. So I'm not sure this is valid. Will