[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1108251009120.27407@router.home>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:11:50 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: remove unneeded preempt_disable
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 14:40 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > I think I'll apply it, as the call frequency is low (correct?) and the
> > problem will correct itself as other architectures implement their
> > atomic this_cpu_foo() operations.
>
> Which leads me to wonder, can anything but x86 implement that this_cpu_*
> muck? I doubt any of the risk chips can actually do all this.
> Maybe Itanic, but then that seems to be dying fast.
The cpu needs to have an RMW instruction that does something to a
variable relative to a register that points to the per cpu base.
Thats generally possible. The problem is how expensive the RMW is going to
be.
--
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