[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091002095455.GC21427@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 11:54:55 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: cl@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [this_cpu_xx V4 00/20] Introduce per cpu atomic operations and
avoid per cpu address arithmetic
* Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> cl@...ux-foundation.org wrote:
> > V3->V4:
> > - Fix various macro definitions.
> > - Provider experimental percpu based fastpath that does not disable
> > interrupts for SLUB.
>
> The series looks very good to me. [...]
Seconded, very nice series!
One final step/cleanup seems to be missing from it: it should replace
current uses of percpu_op() [percpu_read(), etc.] in the x86 tree and
elsewhere with the new this_cpu_*() primitives. this_cpu_*() is using
per_cpu_from_op/per_cpu_to_op directly, we dont need those percpu_op()
variants anymore.
There should also be a kernel image size comparison done for that step,
to make sure all the new primitives are optimized to the max on the
instruction level.
> [...] percpu#for-next now has ia64 bits included and the legacy
> allocator is gone there so it can carry this series. Sans the last
> one, they seem they can be stable and incremental from now on, right?
> Shall I include this series into the percpu tree?
I'd definitely recommend doing that - it should be tested early and wide
for v2.6.33, and together with other percpu bits.
Ingo
--
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