[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110920172531.GA21179@Krystal>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 13:25:31 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
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()
* Steven Rostedt (rostedt@...dmis.org) wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 19:09 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 12:56 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > random_cpu_*() // Thomas's idea
> >
> > I like this one best..
>
> I like it too, but not really the most appropriate.
>
> >
> > But you forgot do deal with the irqsafe_cpu() crap, that's the same
> > brainfart as this_cpu() but more expensive because it frobs IRQ state.
>
> But irqsafe_cpu_*() doesn't really have any real meaning to me. That is
> something when I see it, I go and read the comments about it. It doesn't
> contain "this_cpu" which is something that seems to explain what it is,
> even though the obvious is not what it is.
Throwing ideas from the IRC discussion into the mix (Paul McKenney and I
came up with it at the same time):
preempt_protected_percpu_*()
irq_protected_percpu_*()
Seems to be quite self-explanatory.
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
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