There are a few places where ___cacheline_aligned* is used with
DEFINE_PER_CPU(). Use DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED() instead.
DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED() applies alignment only on SMPs. While
all other converted places used _in_smp variant or only get compiled
for SMP, net/rds used unconditional ____cacheline_aligned. I don't
see any reason these data structures should be aligned on UP and thus
converted together.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc: Andy Grover <andy.grover@oracle.com>
Make sure the meaning of "lsl" is covered somewhere and it is clear why we
somewhat duplicate the sram alloc/free functions.
Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
This restores some L1 reservation logic that was lost during the Blackfin
SMP merge.
Signed-off-by: Graf Yang <graf.yang@analog.com>
Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
Now that the sram_init() function exists only to call the bfin_sram_init()
after the punting of the reserve_pda() function, simply merge the two to
avoid pointless overhead.
Signed-off-by: Graf Yang <graf.yang@analog.com>
Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
Setting ->owner as done currently (pde->owner = THIS_MODULE) is racy
as correctly noted at bug #12454. Someone can lookup entry with NULL
->owner, thus not pinning enything, and release it later resulting
in module refcount underflow.
We can keep ->owner and supply it at registration time like ->proc_fops
and ->data.
But this leaves ->owner as easy-manipulative field (just one C assignment)
and somebody will forget to unpin previous/pin current module when
switching ->owner. ->proc_fops is declared as "const" which should give
some thoughts.
->read_proc/->write_proc were just fixed to not require ->owner for
protection.
rmmod'ed directories will be empty and return "." and ".." -- no harm.
And directories with tricky enough readdir and lookup shouldn't be modular.
We definitely don't want such modular code.
Removing ->owner will also make PDE smaller.
So, let's nuke it.
Kudos to Jeff Layton for reminding about this, let's say, oversight.
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12454
Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Blackfin dual core BF561 processor can support SMP like features.
https://docs.blackfin.uclinux.org/doku.php?id=linux-kernel:smp-like
In this patch, we provide SMP extend to Blackfin kernel and memory management code
Singed-off-by: Graf Yang <graf.yang@analog.com>
Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Bryan Wu <cooloney@kernel.org>
rename blackfin_sram.c to sram-alloc.c (we know it is a blackfin file,
since it is in arch/blackfin) - and there is no "driver" code in there,
it is just an allocator/deallocator for L1 and L2 sram.
Also fix a problem that checkpatch pointed out
Signed-off-by: Robin Getz <rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org>
Signed-off-by: Bryan Wu <cooloney@kernel.org>
2008-10-08 17:22:49 +08:00
Renamed from arch/blackfin/mm/blackfin_sram.c (Browse further)
