[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1314312987.26922.13.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:56:27 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
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, 2011-08-25 at 14:19 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 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.
Ah, but not if the this_cpu_inc() thing ends up being more than a single
instruction, then you have preemption/migration windows. Only when LL/SC
can deal with SC having a different EA from the LL and supports a big
enough offset could this possibly work.
--
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