Re: [PATCH -v10 0/4] Lock-less list

[huang ying]

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 16:52 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:45:58 +0800
>> Huang Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 05:55 +0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> > > I'm trying to remember why we're talking about this.
>> > >
>> > > You had an ACPI-based "hardware error reporting" thing. ÂAnd that
>> > > required an nmi-context memory allocator. ÂAnd that required a
>> > > "lockless" list implementation.
>> > >
>> > > Yes?
>> >
>> > Yes. ÂBut the "lockless" list implementation is general, it can be used
>> > by other part of kernel too, Âsuch as irq_work and xlist in
>> > net/rds/xlist.h in the patchset.
>>
>> Well. ÂLots of things are general but that doesn't mean we toss them
>> into the kernel when we already have plenty of infrastructure to handle
>> that sort of thing.
>>
>> otoh, hoisting xlist.h out of net/rds and making it generally available
>> is a good thing.
>>
>> otooh, net/rds/ probably didn't need xlist at all and could have used
>> existing general code.
>>
>> So... ÂI'd say that unless and until the NMI-context allocator is
>> merged, the case for merging the lockless list code is a bit marginal?
>> Or have you identified other code sites which could use llist and which
>> would gain some benefit from migrating?
>
> In fact, I have a patch ready and waiting to revert the whole irq_work
> stuff, that too seems to be a superfluous generalization.

What do you plan to replace irq_work?  I plan to use it in APEI NMI
handler and MCE handler.

Best Regards,
Huang Ying
--
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/