On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 09:56:37PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Anyway, can anybody explain percpu_stable_op() vs percpu_from_op() ?
>
> I'm thinking of a variant of Linus' patch, but I'm confused about the
> above.
So whatever I tried with +m only made things worse and always affects
On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 07:35:17PM +, Nadav Amit wrote:
> Nice script!
Find a new one; this one is fast enough to run a symbol diff on vmlinux.o
compare.sh
Description: Bourne shell script
On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 07:35:17PM +, Nadav Amit wrote:
> Nice script! I keep asking myself how comparing two binaries can provide
> some “number” to indicate how “good” the binary is (at least relatively to
> another one) - either during compilation or after. Code size, as you show,
> is the
> On Mar 8, 2019, at 6:50 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 11:12:52AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>> This is a collection of x86/percpu changes that I had pending and got
>> reminded
>> of by Linus' comment yesterday about __this_cpu_xchg().
>>
>> This tidies up the
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 11:12:52AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> This is a collection of x86/percpu changes that I had pending and got reminded
> of by Linus' comment yesterday about __this_cpu_xchg().
>
> This tidies up the x86/percpu primitives and fixes a bunch of 'fallout'.
(Sorry; this is
> On Feb 27, 2019, at 2:12 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> This is a collection of x86/percpu changes that I had pending and got reminded
> of by Linus' comment yesterday about __this_cpu_xchg().
>
> This tidies up the x86/percpu primitives and fixes a bunch of 'fallout'.
>
> Built
Hi all,
This is a collection of x86/percpu changes that I had pending and got reminded
of by Linus' comment yesterday about __this_cpu_xchg().
This tidies up the x86/percpu primitives and fixes a bunch of 'fallout'.
Built and boot tested with CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT=y.
---
7 matches
Mail list logo
