[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1012211638470.3769@router.home>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 16:43:24 -0600 (CST)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
rui.zhang@...el.com, lenb@...nel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: acpi throttling: Use this_cpu_has and simplify code
On Sat, 18 Dec 2010, Tejun Heo wrote:
> It's bothersome that these methods don't have any indication that
> they're bound to local CPU when they can't be called with @pr for
> another CPU as MSRs can only be accessed from local CPU.
Right.
> In the longer run, it would be nice if there's an indication that this
> is only for the local CPU and maybe a WARN_ON_ONCE(). Maybe dropping
> @pr and using this_cpu_*() is better for performance too?
That is precisely the difficulty with many other functions that take
pointers to cpu_info. If we can establish that they are called *only* with
pointers to the current cpu then we can improve the function by dropping
the parameter and using this_cpu ops to access the cpu_info fields.
Using this_cpu ops instead of access to a field of a struct pointed to by
an array avoids an addition of pointers and replacest with a operation
that essentially takes a global address with a segment prefix. It reduces
register pressure and avoids the additions of pointers but it will encode
the address in the instruction.
--
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