[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ADDC5AFB-2E49-467C-937A-0171CEECBC42@vmware.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 21:12:30 +0000
From: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <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 Jul 22, 2019, at 1:52 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> 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?
Yes, it should.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists