On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 10:02 PM Will Deacon <[email protected]> wrote: > > [typo in subject "rebudant"] > > On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 06:21:38PM +0800, Pingfan Liu wrote: > > There are two identical implementations of setup_per_cpu_areas() in > > mm/percpu.c and drivers/base/arch_numa.c. > > > > Hence removing the one in arch_numa.c. And let arm64 drop > > HAVE_SETUP_PER_CPU_AREA. > > > > Signed-off-by: Pingfan Liu <[email protected]> > > Cc: Catalin Marinas <[email protected]> > > Cc: Will Deacon <[email protected]> > > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> > > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]> > > Cc: Atish Patra <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > --- > > arch/arm64/Kconfig | 4 ---- > > drivers/base/arch_numa.c | 22 ---------------------- > > 2 files changed, 26 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > > index 1f212b47a48a..d4bf8be0c3d5 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig > > +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > > @@ -1022,10 +1022,6 @@ config USE_PERCPU_NUMA_NODE_ID > > def_bool y > > depends on NUMA > > > > -config HAVE_SETUP_PER_CPU_AREA > > - def_bool y > > - depends on NUMA > > - > > config NEED_PER_CPU_EMBED_FIRST_CHUNK > > def_bool y > > depends on NUMA > > diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_numa.c b/drivers/base/arch_numa.c > > index 4cc4e117727d..23e1e419a83d 100644 > > --- a/drivers/base/arch_numa.c > > +++ b/drivers/base/arch_numa.c > > @@ -167,28 +167,6 @@ static void __init pcpu_fc_free(void *ptr, size_t size) > > { > > memblock_free_early(__pa(ptr), size); > > } > > - > > -void __init setup_per_cpu_areas(void) > > -{ > > - unsigned long delta; > > - unsigned int cpu; > > - int rc; > > - > > - /* > > - * Always reserve area for module percpu variables. That's > > - * what the legacy allocator did. > > - */ > > - rc = pcpu_embed_first_chunk(PERCPU_MODULE_RESERVE, > > - PERCPU_DYNAMIC_RESERVE, PAGE_SIZE, > > - pcpu_cpu_distance, > > - pcpu_fc_alloc, pcpu_fc_free); > > This doesn't look identical to the version in mm/percpu.c -- that one passes > NULL instead of 'pcpu_cpu_distance' and tries to allocate the pcpu memory on > the relevant NUMA nodes. In fact, if you could remove this function, you > could probably remove the whole HAVE_SETUP_PER_CPU_AREA block here as the > other functions are just used as helpers. So I'm not sure this is valid. > You are right. I need to rethink about it to see whether these two functions can be unified into one.
Thanks, Pingfan
