Re: [PATCH] percpu: add optimized generic percpu accessors

From: Tejun Heo
Date: Sat Jan 31 2009 - 01:12:22 EST

Hello, Rusty.

Rusty Russell wrote:
>> Rusty Russell wrote:
>>> If the stats are only manipulated in one context, than an atomic
>>> requirement is overkill (and expensive on non-x86).
>> Yes, it is. I was hoping it to be not more expensive on most archs.
>> It isn't on x86 at the very least but I don't know much about other
>> archs.
> Hmm, you can garner this from the local_t stats which were flying around.
> (see Re: local_add_return from me), or look in the preamble to
> ).

Ah... Great.

> Of course, if you want to be my hero, you could implement "soft" irq
> disable for all archs, which would make this cheaper.

I suppose you mean deferred execution of interrupt handlers for quick
atomicities. Yeah, that would be nice for things like this.

>>> Other than the shouting, I liked Christoph's system:
>>> - CPU_INC = always safe (eg. local_irq_save/per_cpu(i)++/local_irq_restore)
>>> - _CPU_INC = not safe against interrupts (eg. get_cpu/per_cpu(i)++/put_cpu)
>>> - __CPU_INC = not safe against anything (eg. per_cpu(i)++)
>>> I prefer the name 'local' to the name 'cpu', but I'm not hugely fussed.
>> I like local better too but no biggies one way or the other.
> Maybe kill local_t and take the name back. I'll leave it to you...
>>> Ah, I did not realize that you celebrated Australia day :)
>> Hey, didn't know Australia was founded on lunar New Year's day.
>> Nice. :-)
> That would have been cool, but no; first time in 76 years they matched tho.

It was a joke. :-)


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at