[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111222160822.GE17084@google.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 08:08:22 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] slab fixes for 3.2-rc4
Hello, Christoph.
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 08:58:43AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Well that would be a pretty nice simplification of the API.
> Replace the fallback code for the preempt safe ones with the
> irqsafe fallbacks, then drop the irqsafe variants from percpu.h.
Yeah, it seems we're going that direction.
> > > The way that the cmpxchg things are used is also similar to transactional
> > > memory that is becoming available in the next generation of processors by
> > > Intel and that is already available in the current generation of powerpc
> > > processors by IBM. It is a way to avoid locking overhead.
> >
> > Hmmm... how about removing the ones which aren't currently in use?
>
> Yep. Could easily be done. We can resurrect the stuff as needed when other
> variants become necessary. In particular the _and and _or etc stuff was
> just added to be backward compatible with the old per cpu and local_t
> interfaces. There may be no use cases left.
Yeap, and that one too. Maybe we can finally kill the duplicate
confusing static/dynamic accessors too. I'm planning to get to it in
several weeks but if anyone can beat me to it, please go ahead.
Thank you.
--
tejun
--
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