Re: [this_cpu_xx V4 02/20] this_cpu: X86 optimized this_cpu operations

[Pekka Enberg]

Hi Ingo,

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * cl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <cl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
> > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/