[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150629093219.GD3644@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 11:32:19 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at>, oleg@...hat.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mingo@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dave@...olabs.net, riel@...hat.com,
viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 05/13] percpu-rwsem: Optimize readers and reduce
global impact
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 03:17:01PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hmmm... the only worry I have about this is people using it on u64 on
> 32bit machines. CPU local ops can do split updates on lower and upper
> halves and the remotely-read value will be surprising. We have the
> same issues w/ regular per_cpu accesses to but the summing function /
> macro is better at giving the false sense of security. Prolly
> limiting it upto ulong size is a good idea?
Agreed, luckily we already have the infrastructure for this, something
like so?
--- a/include/linux/percpu-defs.h
+++ b/include/linux/percpu-defs.h
@@ -287,6 +287,16 @@ do { \
preempt_enable(); \
} while (0)
+#define per_cpu_sum(var) \
+({ \
+ typeof(var) __sum = 0; \
+ int cpu; \
+ compiletime_assert_atomic_type(__sum); \
+ for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) \
+ __sum += per_cpu(var, cpu); \
+ __sum; \
+})
+
/*
* Branching function to split up a function into a set of functions that
* are called for different scalar sizes of the objects handled.
--
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