[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1011301501320.4039@router.home>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:03:20 -0600 (CST)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [thisops uV3 15/18] Xen: Use this_cpu_ops
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On 11/30/2010 11:07 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > static irqreturn_t xen_timer_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id)
> > {
> > - struct clock_event_device *evt = &__get_cpu_var(xen_clock_events);
> > irqreturn_t ret;
> >
> > ret = IRQ_NONE;
> > - if (evt->event_handler) {
> > - evt->event_handler(evt);
> > + if (__this_cpu_read(xen_clock_events.event_handler)) {
> > + __this_cpu_read(xen_clock_events.event_handler)(evt);
>
> Really? What code does this generate? If this is generating two
> segment-prefixed reads rather than getting the address and doing normal
> reads on it, then I don't think it is an improvement.
Lets drop that hunk. No point to do optimizations at that location then.
evt is also not defined then. Without the evt address determination via
__get_cpu_var we have at least 2 prefixed load and one address
calculation to figure out the parameter to pass. No win.
--
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