Message-ID: <4AC8D298.6080206@cs.helsinki.fi>
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2009 19:51:36 +0300
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
CC: cl@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
       rusty@rustcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: [this_cpu_xx V4 02/20] this_cpu: X86 optimized this_cpu	operations
References: <20091001212521.123389189@gentwo.org> <20091001212557.963565363@gentwo.org> <20091002095916.GA26201@elte.hu> <4AC7A6FF.8040002@cs.helsinki.fi> <20091004164731.GA20489@elte.hu>
In-Reply-To: <20091004164731.GA20489@elte.hu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1739
Lines: 42

Hi Ingo,

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> * cl@linux-foundation.org <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 <cl@linux-foundation.org>
>>> Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
>> 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?

I'm fine with that. Just wanted to make sure who is taking the patches 
and if I should pick any of them up. We can get some conflicts between 
the per-cpu tree and slab.git if new SLUB patches get merged but that's 
probably not a huge problem.

			Pekka
--
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/