[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1012101236300.13986@router.home>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:39:39 -0600 (CST)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
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>
Subject: Re: [BUG] 2.6.37-rc3 massive interactivity regression on ARM
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > 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.
>
> gcc wont be able to do this yet (%fs/%gs selectors)
The kernel can do that using the __percpu annotation.
> But we can provide this_cpu_write_seqcount_{begin|end}()
No we cannot do hat. this_cpu ops are for per cpu data and not for locking
values shared between processors. We have a mechanism for passing per cpu
pointers with a corresponding annotation.
> static inline void this_cpu_write_seqcount_begin(seqcount_t *s)
^^^ Would have to be seqcount_t __percpu *s
> {
> __this_cpu_inc(s->sequence);
> smp_wmb();
> }
--
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