[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49709547.7060001@rtr.ca>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 09:10:15 -0500
From: Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.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
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:02:59 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
>> * Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
..
>>> I wonder if the preempt_disable()/preempt_enable() in here actually
>>> does anything useful on any architecture.
>> Provides "this is IRQ safe"
>
> ?
>
>> and "this is preempt safe" semantics.
>
> Of course. But do any architectures actually _need_ that for a single read?
..
If the target is unaligned, then RISC architectures will need protection there.
If we can guarantee correct memory alignment of the target, then no / none.
Cheers
--
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