[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200807111659.19704.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:59:19 +1000
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Mike Travis <travis@....com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/15] x86_64: Optimize percpu accesses
On Friday 11 July 2008 06:22:52 Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> writes:
> > No, that sounds like a bad idea. For one, how would you enforce it? How
> > would you check for it? It's one of those things that would mostly work
> > and then fail very rarely.
>
> Well the easiest way would be to avoid the letting people take the address
> of per cpu memory, and just provide macros to read/write it. We are 90% of
> the way there already so it isn't a big jump.
Hi Eric,
I decided against that originally, but we can revisit that decision. But
it would *not* be easy. Try it on kernel/sched.c which uses per-cpu "struct
rq".
Perhaps we could limit dynamically allocated per-cpu mem this way though...
Rusty.
--
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