[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1316537403.13664.59.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 18:50:03 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Introduce checks for preemptable code for
this_cpu_read/write()
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 11:10 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > I really mean all other users of this_cpu_*(), including the cmpxchg and
> > friends, still need to have preemption disabled.
>
> This is argument against the basic design of this_cpu_ops. They were
> designed to avoid having to disable preemption for single operations on
> per cpu data. I think this shows a basic misunderstanding of what you are
> dealing with.
But part of that design is that its impossible to verify the
correctness. This is the part we object to and you keep avoiding.
There is a reason smp_processor_id() warns if its called in a
preemptible context, all the this_cpu wankery doesn't. It doesn't
provide a single useful debug feature and in places is designed so that
its impossible.
Seriously, how can you defend this shitpile with a straight face? Sure
it make slub go faster, but who gives a flying fuck if it brings the
rest of the kernel to its knees.
--
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