From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752178Ab2GAHSN (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Jul 2012 03:18:13 -0400 Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.196]:44139 "EHLO relay4-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751494Ab2GAHSM (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Jul 2012 03:18:12 -0400 X-Originating-IP: 217.70.178.144 X-Originating-IP: 50.43.46.74 Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 00:17:58 -0700 From: Josh Triplett To: Rusty Russell Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca, niv@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, dhowells@redhat.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, darren@dvhart.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, sbw@mit.edu, patches@linaro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 01/22] rcu: Control RCU_FANOUT_LEAF from boot-time parameter Message-ID: <20120701071757.GA8749@leaf> References: <20120622151655.GA6249@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1340378241-6458-1-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87y5n4xatd.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87y5n4xatd.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 03:49:42PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 08:17:00 -0700, "Paul E. McKenney" wrote: > > From: "Paul E. McKenney" > > > > Although making RCU_FANOUT_LEAF a kernel configuration parameter rather > > than a fixed constant makes it easier for people to decrease cache-miss > > overhead for large systems, it is of little help for people who must > > run a single pre-built kernel binary. > > > > This commit therefore allows the value of RCU_FANOUT_LEAF to be > > increased (but not decreased!) via a boot-time parameter named > > rcutree.rcu_fanout_leaf. > ... > > +static int rcu_fanout_leaf = CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT_LEAF; > > +module_param(rcu_fanout_leaf, int, 0); > > Maybe it's overkill, but 0400 or 0444 might be a nice touch. I agree. 0 almost never makes sense; root should almost always have the ability to read module parameters. And in this case, I see no reason not to make it 0444. - Josh Triplett