From: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH UPDATED] sched: adjust when cpu_active and cpuset configurations are updated during cpu on/offlining
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:15:51 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <AANLkTil7QBQOsWIWQOGOaAz76eDqx9clZ1CfL2MR5484@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4C1FD1D0.4060803@kernel.org>
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> I see. I think the right solution is removing __cpuexit but it's kind
> of silly to have different rules on different architectures. On x86,
> __cpuexit currently means "you can drop it if you're not gonna be
> removing cpus after system boot"; IOW, __cpuexit is strict subset of
> __cpuinit. If you define it as "don't include it in the text at all
> if cpus are not gonna be removed", it actually forces you to carry
> more text in the running system. Is there any reason ia64 drops them
> during linking?
The history is that __exit functions are those that are called on module
unload. When a driver is built-in to the kernel, it can obviously never
be unloaded. Therefore the __exit code must just be bloat for the built-in
case.
A system built with CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU=n meets the requirement
that cpus will not be removed after system boot. So why do I need to
include the __cpuexit code that should only be used to remove cpus?
-Tony
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-06-21 21:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-06-04 13:27 [GIT PULL] sched/core: scheduler patches for cmwq Tejun Heo
2010-06-08 19:46 ` [PATCH UPDATED] sched: adjust when cpu_active and cpuset configurations are updated during cpu on/offlining Tejun Heo
2010-06-21 18:28 ` Tony Luck
2010-06-21 20:55 ` Tejun Heo
2010-06-21 21:15 ` Tony Luck [this message]
2010-06-21 21:20 ` Tejun Heo
2010-06-21 21:46 ` Tony Luck
2010-06-21 22:02 ` Tejun Heo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=AANLkTil7QBQOsWIWQOGOaAz76eDqx9clZ1CfL2MR5484@mail.gmail.com \
--to=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).