[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190722205227.GK6698@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 22:52:27 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/7] x86/percpu: Use C for percpu accesses when possible
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:41:06AM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/preempt.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/preempt.h
> index 99a7fa9ab0a3..60f97b288004 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/preempt.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/preempt.h
> @@ -91,7 +91,8 @@ static __always_inline void __preempt_count_sub(int val)
> */
> static __always_inline bool __preempt_count_dec_and_test(void)
> {
> - return GEN_UNARY_RMWcc("decl", __preempt_count, e, __percpu_arg([var]));
> + return GEN_UNARY_RMWcc("decl", __my_cpu_var(__preempt_count), e,
> + __percpu_arg([var]));
> }
Should this be in the previous patch?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists