[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130814164827.GN23412@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 09:48:27 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>,
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 Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 03:15:39PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> These patches optimize preempt_enable by firstly folding the preempt and
> need_resched tests into one -- this should work for all architectures. And
> secondly by providing per-arch preempt_count implementations; with x86 using
> per-cpu preempt_count for fastest access.
>
> These patches have so far only been compiled for defconfig-x86_64 +
> CONFIG_PREEMPT=y and boot tested with kvm -smp 4 upto wanting to mount root.
>
> It still needs asm volatile("call preempt_schedule": : :"memory"); as per
> Andi's other patches to avoid the C calling convention cluttering the
> preempt_enable() sites.
FWIW I removed the user_schedule in v2 because I don't need it anymore.
Feel free to pick it up from v1 though.
It needs two patches: the one adding SAVE_ALL for 32bit and
the parts of the put_user() patch adding user_schedule
When it's not used in user_ anymore it should probably
be renamed too, to preempt_schedule or somesuch,
and probably moved to a different file.
-Andi
--
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