[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <496FB05F.4020101@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 06:53:35 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, travis@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, steiner@....com, hugh@...itas.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu: add optimized generic percpu accessors
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> and "this is preempt safe" semantics.
>> Of course. But do any architectures actually _need_ that for a single
>> read?
>
> not for a read i guess - but for the other ops like add/and/or/xor.
FWIW, it prevents cross-cpu cacheline contamination. :-)
>> Maybe. And if so, they can interpose their arch-specific
>> implementation. But if the generic version is optimal for them, they
>> wouldn't need to..
>
> we cannot turn the generic ops into a single instruction so arch methods
> are preferable no matter how thick or thin the generic version is. But i
> agree that the optimization you suggest could be done.
I think the preemption protection is good to have there for, if
nothing else, documentation.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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