[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1291828646.2883.65.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 18:17:26 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Replace uses of current_cpu_data with this_cpu ops
Le mercredi 08 décembre 2010 à 09:33 -0600, Christoph Lameter a écrit :
> On Wed, 8 Dec 2010, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> > > In the long run, it might be a good idea to remove cpu_data() macro
> > > too and use per_cpu macro directly.
> > >
> >
> > or introduce this_cpu_has() to remove the adress computation
> >
> > - if (cpu_has(__this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_info), X86_FEATURE_ARAT)) {
> >
> > + if (this_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ARAT)) {
> >
>
> The fundamental problem is that bitops require memory addresses which does
> not work with per cpu ops.
>
Sure, set() or clear() needs the address, but the read doesnt ?
This can be implemented as
(__this_cpu_read(cpu_info.word[X]) & MASK)
Anyway, even if mapped to cpu_has(__this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_info), XXX),
it would be cleaner to use this_cpu_has() helper.
--
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