[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1503241343470.32546@gentwo.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 13:47:06 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Uwe Kleine-Koenig <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] ring-buffer: Replace this_cpu_*() with
__this_cpu_*()
On Mon, 23 Mar 2015, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Any comment on this?
Yes we could do this but I am traveling a bit right now. Sorry not that
responsive.
It will not be strictly correct since a fetch or write could occur from a
different cpu and thereby kick out a cacheline. But that is minor I think.
The main issue is that this makes this_cpu_read/write different from other
this_cpu operations which guarantee that these are "per cpu atomic" in the
sense that they are either completely executed or not. But that is mostly
important for this_cpu_ ops that are RMV operations like this_cpu_inc().
--
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