[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1286481860.3745.30.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 22:04:20 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu_counter: change inaccurate comment
Le jeudi 07 octobre 2010 à 14:42 -0500, Christoph Lameter a écrit :
> On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> > percpu_counter used to be huge objects, they are not anymore,
> > thanks to fine alloc_percpu() granularity.
> >
> > We now consume 4 bytes per possible cpu.
>
> Ahh I did not notice that they switched.... Then we may also want the
> following patch to improve performance. It would even be better if we
> could do a this_cpu_add(fbc->counters, amount) there but the 64 bit size
> fo count looks suspiciously like you are expecting overflows beyond ints
> max size.
>
Yes, this 64bit interface is very strange.
>
> Subject: percpu_counter: Use this_cpu_ptr instead of per_cpu_ptr
>
> this_cpu_ptr avoids an array lookup and can use the percpu
> offset of the local cpu directly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
>
> ---
> lib/percpu_counter.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6/lib/percpu_counter.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/lib/percpu_counter.c 2010-10-07 14:36:39.000000000 -0500
> +++ linux-2.6/lib/percpu_counter.c 2010-10-07 14:38:43.000000000 -0500
> @@ -30,9 +30,9 @@ void __percpu_counter_add(struct percpu_
> {
> s64 count;
> s32 *pcount;
> - int cpu = get_cpu();
>
> - pcount = per_cpu_ptr(fbc->counters, cpu);
> + preempt_disable();
> + pcount = this_cpu_ptr(fbc->counters);
> count = *pcount + amount;
> if (count >= batch || count <= -batch) {
> spin_lock(&fbc->lock);
> @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ void __percpu_counter_add(struct percpu_
> } else {
> *pcount = count;
> }
> - put_cpu();
> + preempt_enable();
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(__percpu_counter_add);
>
If enclosed by preempt_disable()/preempt_enable(), maybe we could use
__this_cpu_ptr() ?
--
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