[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090120103606.GA29346@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:36:06 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hpa@...or.com, brgerst@...il.com,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, cl@...ux-foundation.org, travis@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, steiner@....com, hugh@...itas.com,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu: add optimized generic percpu accessors
* Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> Rusty Russell wrote:
> > The generic versions Tejun posted are not softirq safe, so not
> > suitable for network counters. To figure out what semantics we
> > really want we need to we must audit the users; I'm sorry I haven't
> > finished that task (and won't until after the conference).
>
> No, they're not. They're preempt safe as mentioned in the comment and
> is basically just generalization of the original x86 versions used by
> x86_64 on SMP before pda and percpu areas were merged. I agree that
> it's something very close to local_t and it would be nice to see those
> somehow unified (and I have patches which make use of local_t in my
> queue waiting for dynamic percpu allocation).
>
> Another question to ask is whether to keep using separate interfaces for
> static and dynamic percpu variables or migrate to something which can
> take both.
Also, there's over 400 PER_CPU variable definitions in the kernel, while
only about 40 dynamic percpu allocation usage sites. (in that i included
the percpu_counter bits used by networking)
So our percpu code usage is on the static side, by a large margin.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists