From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030391AbWAXI62 (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jan 2006 03:58:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030393AbWAXI62 (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jan 2006 03:58:28 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:24467 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030391AbWAXI61 (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jan 2006 03:58:27 -0500 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 00:58:06 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: "Jan Beulich" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] tvec_bases too large for per-cpu data Message-Id: <20060124005806.7e9ab02e.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <43D5F44C.76F0.0078.0@novell.com> References: <43CE4C98.76F0.0078.0@novell.com> <20060120232500.07f0803a.akpm@osdl.org> <43D4BE7F.76F0.0078.0@novell.com> <20060123025702.1f116e70.akpm@osdl.org> <43D5F44C.76F0.0078.0@novell.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "Jan Beulich" wrote: > > >- The `#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA' in init_timers_cpu() seems to be unnecessary - > > kmalloc_node() will use kmalloc() if !NUMA. > > That is correct, but I wanted the fallback if kmalloc_node() fails (from briefly looking at that code it didn't > seem like it would do such fallback itself). And calling kmalloc() twice if !NUMA seemed pointless. I'm sorry, but how were we to know that? Telepathy? GFP_KERNEL for these size objects is pretty much infallible anyway, so I wouldn't worry about it. Or allocate all needed storage a little later in boot with alloc_percpu(). > >- We prefer to do this: > > > > if (expr) { > > ... > > } else { > > ... > > } > > > > and not > > > > if (expr) { > > ... > > } > > else { > > ... > > } > > I can change that, too, but I don't see why this gets pointed out again and again when there really > is no consistency across the entire kernel... > We fix these things up when working on incorrectly laid-out code, but we rarely bother raising a patch just to fix something like that. We'll get there eventually.