[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131016084659.GS10651@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:46:59 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, akpm@...uxfoundation.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] net: __this_cpu_inc in route.c
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:47:27PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> The RT_CACHE_STAT_INC macro triggers the new preemption checks
> for __this_cpu ops
>
> I do not see any other synchronization that would allow the use
> of a __this_cpu operation here however in commit
> dbd2915ce87e811165da0717f8e159276ebb803e Andrew justifies
> the use of raw_smp_processor_id() here because "we do not care"
> about races.
>
> So lets use raw_cpu ops here and hope for the best. The use of
> __this_cpu op improves the situation already from what commit
> dbd2915ce87e811165da0717f8e159276ebb803e did since the single instruction
> emitted on x86 does not allow the race to occur anymore. However,
> non x86 platforms could still experience a race here.
>
Are we sure all !x86 implementations will DTRT in that it will increment
some CPU and not get horribly confused? I suppose it would; but is
that a guarantee given someplace?
--
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