[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1102231320050.4823@router.home>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:22:02 -0600 (CST)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
josh@...htriplett.org, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
peterz@...radead.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 11/11] rcu: move TREE_RCU from softirq
to kthread
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> These do introduce redundant preempt_disable()/preempt_enable() calls, but
> this is not on a fastpath, so should be OK, and the improved readability
> is certainly nice. The read and the write do need to happen on the same
> CPU, FWIW.
this_cpu_xxx only use preempt_enable/disable() on platforms that do not
support per cpu atomic instructions. On x86 no preempt enable/disable will
be inserted.
You can also use the __this_cpu_xxx operations which never add preempt
disable/enable because they expect the caller to deal with preemption.
--
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