Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:25:50 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
To: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "eric.dumazet@gmail.com" <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [patch v3 3/3] percpu_counter: use atomic64 for counter in SMP
In-Reply-To: <1303112625.3981.191.camel@sli10-conroe>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1104180923530.23207@router.home>
References: <20110414020447.979946152@sli10-conroe.sh.intel.com>  <20110414020747.411215973@sli10-conroe.sh.intel.com>  <20110415041506.GC29512@mtj.dyndns.org> <1303112625.3981.191.camel@sli10-conroe>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 800
Lines: 20

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011, Shaohua Li wrote:

> > Disabling preemption here doesn't make any sense.
> > percpu_counter_set() inherently requires its users to guarantee that
> > no other user is modifying the percpu counter.
> ha, ok.
> should I still rebase the patch against Christoph's patch? Looks that
> one is still not settled down.

I am a kind of confused about some of the arguments made there right now
and having your patch in that does the conversion to atomic would
simplify my patch (removes the spin_lock/unlock sequence in overflow
handling).


--
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/