[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1286484131.3745.88.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 22:42:11 +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 15:13 -0500, Christoph Lameter a écrit :
> On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> > If enclosed by preempt_disable()/preempt_enable(), maybe we could use
> > __this_cpu_ptr() ?
>
> The only difference between __this_cpu_ptr and this_cpu_ptr is that
> this_cpu_ptr checks that preempt was disabled. __this_cpu_ptr allows use
> even without preempt. Preempt must be disabled here so the use of
> this_cpu_ptr is appropriate.
>
>
Thats not how I read the thing.
In both variants, preemption _must_ be disabled, its only the context
that can tell how sure we are...
<quote>
commit 7340a0b15280c
__this_cpu_ptr -> Do not check for preemption context
this_cpu_ptr -> Check preemption context
</quote>
If preemption was enabled, both pointers would not be very useful...
We use __this_cpu_ptr() in contexts where cpu _cannot_ change under us,
(we just disabled preemption one line above), so its not necessary to
perform the check.
vi +316 include/linux/percpu.h
#define _this_cpu_generic_to_op(pcp, val, op) \
do { \
preempt_disable(); \
*__this_cpu_ptr(&(pcp)) op val; \
preempt_enable(); \
} while (0)
...
#define __this_cpu_generic_to_op(pcp, val, op) \
do { \
*__this_cpu_ptr(&(pcp)) op val; \
} while (0)
--
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