[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0805190938240.18382@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 09:39:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
cc: Mike Travis <travis@....com>, Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] modules: Use a better scheme for refcounting
On Sat, 17 May 2008, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > You mean using alloc_percpu() ? Problem is that current implementation
> > > is expensive,
>
> I mean rewriting alloc_percpu :)
cpu_alooc is going to replace that completely.
>
> > > We probably can change this to dynamic per-cpu as soon as Mike or
> > > Christopher finish their work on new dynamic per-cpu implementation ?
> >
> > Yes, the zero-based percpu variables followed by the cpu_alloc patch should
> > provide this and shrink the code quite well, including in some cases
> > removing locking requirements (because the resultant instructions will be
> > atomic.)
>
> Ah, I hadn't realized that Mike was already working on this. Mike, have you
> published patches already?
He is reworking my patches. He can use some encouragement though...
--
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