[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1503170049300.9309@gentwo.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 00:56:51 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] ring-buffer: Replace this_cpu_{read,write} with
this_cpu_ptr()
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> It has come to my attention that this_cpu_read/write are horrible on
> architectures other than x86. Worse yet, they actually disable
> preemption or interrupts! This caused some unexpected tracing results
> on ARM.
Well its just been 7 years or so. Took a long time it seems.
These would need to be implemented on the architectures to
have comparable performance.
> I may go and remove all this_cpu_read,write() calls from my code
> because of this.
You could do that with __this_cpo_* but not this_cpu_*(). Doing
it to this_cpu_* would make the operations no longer per cpu atomic. If
they do not need per cpu atomicity then you could have used __this_cpu_*
instead. And __this_cpu_* do not disable preemption or interrupts.
So please do not send patches based on gut reactions.
NAK
--
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