[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150319124023.4c1b1094@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 12:40:23 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ring-buffer: Replace this_cpu_*() with
__this_cpu_*()
On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:33:30 -0500 (CDT)
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> wrote:
> If you are redoing it then please get the comments a bit cleared up. The
What comments should I clear up? This version did not have a comment.
It just switched this_cpu_* to __this_cpu_*, and also updated a
variable algorithm.
-- Steve
> heaviness of the fallback version of this_cpu_read/write can usually
> easily be remedied by arch specific definitions. The per cpu
> offset is somewhere in a register and one needs to define a macro that
> creates an instruction that does a fetch from that register plus
> the current offset into the area that is needed. This is similarly easy
> for the write path. But then its often easier to just use the __this_cpu
> instructions since preemption is often off in these code paths.
>
> I have had code for IA64 in the past that does this.
--
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