[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1108251413130.27407@router.home>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:19:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: James Bottomley <James.bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
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:
> Also, I thought this_cpu thing's were at best locally atomic. If you
> make them full blown atomic ops then even __this_cpu ops will have to be
> full atomic ops, otherwise:
>
>
> CPU0 CPU(1)
>
> this_cpu_inc(&foo); preempt_disable();
> __this_cpu_inc(&foo);
> preempt_enable();
>
> might step on each other's toes.
They would both have their own instance of "foo". per cpu atomicity is
only one requirement of this_cpu_ops. The other is the ability to relocate
accesses relative to the current per cpu area.
Full blown atomicity is almost a superset of per cpu atomicity but its
only usable if the full atomic instructions can also relocate accesses
relative to some base.
--
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