[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1292003346.13513.30.camel@laptop>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 18:49:06 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] 2.6.37-rc3 massive interactivity regression on ARM
On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 18:18 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le vendredi 10 décembre 2010 à 14:47 +0100, Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
> Also irq_time_write_begin() and irq_time_write_end() could be faster
> (called for current cpu)
>
> static inline void irq_time_write_begin(void)
> {
> __this_cpu_inc(irq_time_seq.sequence);
> smp_wmb();
> }
>
> static inline void irq_time_write_end(void)
> {
> smp_wmb();
> __this_cpu_inc(irq_time_seq.sequence);
> }
Yeah, but that kinda defeats the purpose of having it implemented in
seqlock.h. Ideally we'd teach gcc about these long pointers and have
something like:
write_seqcount_begin(&this_cpu_read(irq_time_seq));
do the right thing.
--
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