From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-f70.google.com (mail-ed1-f70.google.com [209.85.208.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E58DD6B02A5 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 10:49:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ed1-f70.google.com with SMTP id 31-v6so4950820edr.19 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 07:49:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id t21-v6sor2594189ejf.20.2018.10.25.07.49.22 for (Google Transport Security); Thu, 25 Oct 2018 07:49:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 14:49:20 +0000 From: Wei Yang Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm, slub: unify access to s->cpu_slab by replacing raw_cpu_ptr() with this_cpu_ptr() Message-ID: <20181025144920.ics5alndk37rpm4s@master> Reply-To: Wei Yang References: <20181025094437.18951-1-richard.weiyang@gmail.com> <20181025094437.18951-2-richard.weiyang@gmail.com> <01000166ab8007d8-7d1d4733-c13d-4e9d-b485-ae0846a5d78c-000000@email.amazonses.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01000166ab8007d8-7d1d4733-c13d-4e9d-b485-ae0846a5d78c-000000@email.amazonses.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Christopher Lameter Cc: Wei Yang , penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 01:53:06PM +0000, Christopher Lameter wrote: >On Thu, 25 Oct 2018, Wei Yang wrote: > >> In current code, we use two forms to access s->cpu_slab >> >> * raw_cpu_ptr() >> * this_cpu_ptr() > >Ok the only difference is that for CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT we will do the >debug checks twice. > >That tolerable I think but is this really a worthwhile change? Agree. My purpose is to make unify the access, looks easy for me to read the code. You can decide whether to change this or not :-) -- Wei Yang Help you, Help me