[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <00000140ea29d3c8-5110dd9f-9dcf-470f-9b7e-4e7ff0874052-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 18:09:04 +0000
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
"akpm@...uxfoundation.org" <akpm@...uxfoundation.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [gcv v3 27/35] arm: Replace __get_cpu_var uses
On Wed, 4 Sep 2013, Will Deacon wrote:
> On ARM, yes. I'm worried that there may be an architecture where the change-
> or-fail operation would only fail if the access from the interrupt handler
> *also* used that change-or-fail instruction, which isn't the case with
> this_cpu_inc.
>
> I have no idea if such an architecture exists :)
Atomic operations use atomic_t. this_cpu operations can only use regular
scalars. So the set of variables that are updated by each should be
distinct.
--
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