linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 6/9] rcu: use __this_cpu_read helper instead of per_cpu_ptr(p, raw_smp_processor

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:42:14 +0000
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc:	Shan Wei <shanwei88@...il.com>, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	Kernel-Maillist <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/9] rcu: use __this_cpu_read helper instead of
 per_cpu_ptr(p, raw_smp_processor_id())


On Fri, 16 Nov 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> If you either show me some significant performance benefits or get me
> an independent Tested-by, in both cases on a range of hardware (e.g.,
> x86 on the one hand and ARM or Power on the other), then I will queue it.

Just putting the code generated for x86 before and after side
by side would be enough to convince you I think.

> I wasn't prioritizing this one very high because it does not appear
> to be on any sort of fastpath.  If I am wrong about that, then you
> have a good performance-benefit case, right?  ;-)

I do not think this needs to be a priority item. Just stick it in the tree
somewhere to merge for the next merge period.

--
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/