[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxRJ+=j91vhZdDu0har8qvhLeP4fea_cSXzkaRE84wvvg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 21:25:04 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] RCU changes for v3.4
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> I must admit that __this_cpu_inc() would be nicer than __this_cpu_add(),
> though, will fix. I need the leading "__" to avoid disabling preemption
> needlessly on non-x86 platforms.
Yeah, that's just bogus. Ok on that.
> The reason that the "__raw" forms are
> safe in this case is because the per-CPU variable is saved and restored
> at context-switch time.
>
> Or am I still missing something here?
It's not that the "__raw" forms are "safe". It's that they are SH*T.
Don't use them. They are crap. Why would you do
+ __raw_get_cpu_var(rcu_read_lock_nesting) =
+ current->rcu_read_lock_nesting_save;
which is just crazy and cannot use the actual sane "%fs:" segment
overrides, but instead has to do idiotic "ready the per-cpu offset
pointer and add it in".
We've got "__this_cpu_write()" which generates the correct code.
Rule of thumb: there is _never_ any good reason to use
__raw_get_cpu_var. It's a broken interface.
Linus
--
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