[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1292006788.13513.43.camel@laptop>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 19:46:28 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
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, 2010-12-10 at 12:39 -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 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.
That's not true:
# define __percpu
Its a complete NOP.
> > 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.
-enoparse, its not locking anything, is a per-cpu sequence count.
--
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