[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0901291315320.9622@qirst.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:33:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hpa@...or.com, brgerst@...il.com,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, travis@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, steiner@....com, hugh@...itas.com,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu: add optimized generic percpu accessors
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > The term cpu is meaning multiple things at this point. So yes it may be
> > better to go with glibc naming of thread local space.
> >
>
> However using "local" for "per-cpu" could be confusing with the glibc
> naming of thread local space, because "per-thread" and "per-cpu"
> variables are different from a synchronization POV and we can end up
> needing both (e.g. a thread local variable can never be accessed by
> another thread, but a cpu local variable could be accessed by a
> different CPU due to scheduling).
gcc/glibc support a __thread attribute to variables. As far as I can tell
this automatically makes gcc perform the relocation to the current
context using a segment register.
But its a weird ABI http://people.redhat.com/drepper/tls.pdf. After
reading that I agree that we should stay with the cpu ops and forget about
the local and thread stuff in gcc/glibc.
--
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