[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 10:40:36 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Bharata B Rao <bharata.rao@...il.com>,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] remove rq->lock from cpuacct cgroup (Was Re:
[PATCH] cpuacct: add a branch prediction
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 18:04 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 08:42 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> >
> >> > Furthermore, if you want something like schedule_work_on() for each
> >> cpu,
> >> > there's schedule_on_each_cpu().
> >> >
> >> It can't pass arguments...Maybe I should use rq->lock here to reset
> >> other cpu's value.
> >
> > Why bother with serializing the reset code at all?
> >
> I don't think reset v.s. read is problem but reset v.s. increment
> (read-modify-write) can't be ?
Sure, can be, do we care?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists