[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <57058544.1000204@hpe.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 17:53:08 -0400
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
CC: Nikolay Borisov <kernel@...p.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@....com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@....com>,
Toshimitsu Kani <toshi.kani@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] percpu_stats: Simple per-cpu statistics count helper
functions
On 04/04/2016 03:09 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2016, Waiman Long wrote:
>
>>>> + if ((unsigned int)stat>= pcs->nstats)
>>>> + return;
>>>> + preempt_disable();
>>>> + pstat = this_cpu_ptr(&pcs->stats[stat]);
>>>> + *pstat += cnt;
>>>> + preempt_enable();
>>>> +}
>>> pstat = get_cpu_ptr(&pcs->stats[stat]);
>>> *pstat += cnt;
>>> put_cpu_ptr(&pcs->stats[stat]);
>>>
>>> It will generate identical code but this one uses APIs, making the
>>> intention clearer. But as I said this is just a minor nit.
>>>
>>> you can add my Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov<kernel@...p.com> for this
>>> particular patch.
>> Yes, that will certainly make it look nicer. I will update the patch once I
>> get feedback from my other ext4 patches.
> Why not
>
> this_cpu_add(pci->stats[stat], cnt)
>
> This is a single instruction on x86.
>
Yes, using this_cpu_add() will be even simpler.
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists