[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150317101009.78442f30@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:10:09 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Nicholas Miell <nmiell@...cast.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sys_membarrier(): system/process-wide memory
barrier (x86) (v12)
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 04:44:11 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 07:40:56AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:26:11PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > As I recently found out that this_cpu_read/write() is not that nice on
> > > all architectures,
> >
> > In fact, they only really work well on x86. Aargh64 seems to have a semi
> > usable version, but mostly its quite horrible indeed.
>
> Yeah, if you are in a preempt-disabled region, __this_cpu_read() and
> __this_cpu_write() generate much better code on most platforms.
>
I was just having this discussion with Christoph. I originally switched
to using this_cpu_ptr(), but I'll try __this_cpu* instead. I think
Christoph recommended that too.
-- Steve
--
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