Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269544AbTGJSAu (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:00:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269558AbTGJSAu (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:00:50 -0400 Received: from air-2.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:10197 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269544AbTGJSAs (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:00:48 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:15:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: davidm@hpl.hp.com cc: Rusty Russell , Kernel Mailing List , Subject: Re: per_cpu fixes In-Reply-To: <16141.43130.657025.952793@napali.hpl.hp.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 937 Lines: 26 On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, David Mosberger wrote: > > You mean there would be three primitives: > > (1) get value from a per-CPU variable > (2) set value of a per-CPU variable > (3) get the (canonical) address of a per-CPU variable Argh. We'd better have the rule that if there are any virtual caches or other issues, then the "canonical address" had better be the _only_ address (or at least any virtual remapping has to be done in such a way that it never causes aliasing or other performance problems with the canonical address). This is already turning fairly ugly, and I just don't want to see even more ugly rules like "you can't mix direct accesses with pointer accesses" Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/