[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200904021050.30070.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:50:28 +1030
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, tglx@...utronix.de,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>, rmk@....linux.org.uk,
starvik@...s.com, ralf@...ux-mips.org, davem@...emloft.net,
cooloney@...nel.org, kyle@...artin.ca, matthew@....cx,
grundler@...isc-linux.org, takata@...ux-m32r.org,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, rth@...ddle.net,
ink@...assic.park.msu.ru, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [GIT RFC] percpu: use dynamic percpu allocator as the default percpu allocator
On Wednesday 01 April 2009 18:47:33 Tejun Heo wrote:
> Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> > Is the goal to use the same access macros for both dynamically and
> > statically allocated percpu variables? That would make the proposed
> > solution impractical.
>
> Yeah, it's one of the goals so that we don't have to have two sets of
> APIs (e.g. the fast percpu_*() accessors).
There's a weaker, but still useful, subset of this goal: to allow the
ptr versions to access any var (ie. you can do "DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, foo);
... some_func(&foo)) yet still have the get_cpu_var() be the optimized
actual-variable versions.
Don't know that the distinction is *useful* here tho...
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