Re: [git-pull -tip] x86: cpu_debug patches

[Ingo Molnar]

* Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpu_cpuX_base, cpu_arr[CPU_REG_ALL_BIT]);
>  static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpu_private *, priv_arr[MAX_CPU_FILES]);
>  static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned, cpu_modelflag);
>  static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, cpu_priv_count);
> -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned, cpu_model);
> +
> +/* Storing vendor locally because it is used excessive in this code */
> +static unsigned cpu_vendor;

There's still no need to store it locally - what's wrong with 
cpu_data(cpu) or current_cpu_data?

Also, do we need the per-cpu cpu_modelflag variable too? I'd suggest 
to integrate that kind of enumeration into struct cpuinfo_x86 and 
cpu_info. We often have such kinds of constructs in x86 code:

	c->x86 <= 0x11

So extending your scheme to other code would benefit all code.

Plus this kind of enumeration:

        switch (model) {
        case 0x0501:
        case 0x0502:
        case 0x0504:
                flag = CPU_INTEL_PENTIUM;
                break;
        case 0x0601:
        case 0x0603:
        case 0x0605:
        case 0x0607:
        case 0x0608:
        case 0x060A:
        case 0x060B:
                flag = CPU_INTEL_P6;

The 0x05/0x06 there is already available as the family flag in 
cpuinfo_x86, as cpu_info::x86. The 01,02...0B model portion is also 
already available as cpu_info::x86_model.

[ there's also cpu_info::x86_mask, which gives the stepping. ]

This is what i meant when i said that you needlessly duplicate 
already existing information. You encode/decode it in some weird 
looking way instead of using the already existing, per CPU 
information of cpu_info.

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/