Re: [PATCH] modules: Use a better scheme for refcounting

[Christoph Lameter]

On Sat, 17 May 2008, Rusty Russell wrote:

> > > You mean using alloc_percpu() ? Problem is that current implementation
> > > is expensive,
> 
> I mean rewriting alloc_percpu :)

cpu_alooc is going to replace that completely.
> 
> > > We probably can change this to dynamic per-cpu as soon as Mike or
> > > Christopher finish their work on new dynamic per-cpu implementation ?
> >
> > Yes, the zero-based percpu variables followed by the cpu_alloc patch should
> > provide this and shrink the code quite well, including in some cases
> > removing locking requirements (because the resultant instructions will be
> > atomic.)
> 
> Ah, I hadn't realized that Mike was already working on this.  Mike, have you 
> published patches already?

He is reworking my patches. He can use some encouragement though...

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/