[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091002173246.GB4884@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 19:32:46 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.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
* Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Well after things settle with this_cpu_xx we can drop those.
>
> > 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.
>
> Right. There will be a time period in which other arches will need to
> add support for this_cpu_xx first.
Size comparison should be only on architectures that support it (i.e.
x86 right now). The generic fallbacks might be bloaty, no argument about
that. ( => the more reason for any architecture to add optimizations for
this_cpu_*() APIs. )
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