[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <520BA590.2030808@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:43:12 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] preempt_count rework
On 08/14/2013 08:39 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> ..so could the rq = cpu_rq(cpu) sequence be improved cycle expenditure
> wise by squirreling rq pointer away in a percpu this_rq, and replacing
> cpu_rq(cpu) above with a __this_cpu_read(this_rq) version of this_rq()?
>
Yes.
-hpa
--
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