Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757506AbZJDQsm (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Oct 2009 12:48:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757400AbZJDQsl (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Oct 2009 12:48:41 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:39597 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757386AbZJDQsk (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Oct 2009 12:48:40 -0400 Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 18:47:31 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Pekka Enberg Cc: cl@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo , rusty@rustcorp.com.au Subject: Re: [this_cpu_xx V4 02/20] this_cpu: X86 optimized this_cpu operations Message-ID: <20091004164731.GA20489@elte.hu> References: <20091001212521.123389189@gentwo.org> <20091001212557.963565363@gentwo.org> <20091002095916.GA26201@elte.hu> <4AC7A6FF.8040002@cs.helsinki.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AC7A6FF.8040002@cs.helsinki.fi> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1434 Lines: 37 * Pekka Enberg wrote: > Hi, > > Ingo Molnar wrote: >> * cl@linux-foundation.org wrote: >> >>> Basically the existing percpu ops can be used for this_cpu variants >>> that allow operations also on dynamically allocated percpu data. >>> However, we do not pass a reference to a percpu variable in. Instead >>> a dynamically or statically allocated percpu variable is provided. >>> >>> Preempt, the non preempt and the irqsafe operations generate the same >>> code. It will always be possible to have the requires per cpu >>> atomicness in a single RMW instruction with segment override on x86. >>> >>> 64 bit this_cpu operations are not supported on 32 bit. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter >> >> Acked-by: Ingo Molnar > > I haven't looked at the series in detail but AFAICT the SLUB patches > depend on the x86 ones. Any suggestions how to get all this into > linux-next? Should I make a topic branch in slab.git on top of -tip or > something? I'd suggest to keep these patches together in the right topical tree: Tejun's percpu tree. Any problem with that approach? Ingo -- 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/