From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932626Ab1BYQhr (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Feb 2011 11:37:47 -0500 Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:53102 "EHLO mail-bw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932586Ab1BYQhp (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Feb 2011 11:37:45 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=rj87qTcr0Hk3+V33vtqL13ZZrc6J1BBCqlQYr8PUrRrQD8Af5K/WOHkIIP6Jhs7+NB glCsusk2PPFlc33zit9lC4G33SiWKwyef+a/4TWfwxSNKwZmpAAG6vo+Ve3IPylHrPxD +YP8AmVYmkchj8UH3nFeg1DB+DDWS7zbJH7Kg= Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 17:37:40 +0100 From: Tejun Heo To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Pekka Enberg , "H. Peter Anvin" , Mathieu Desnoyers , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [cpuops cmpxchg double V2 1/4] Generic support for this_cpu_cmpxchg_double Message-ID: <20110225163740.GS24828@htj.dyndns.org> References: <4D39A6EB.70705@zytor.com> <20110121154831.GE2832@htj.dyndns.org> <20110121165425.GB11687@Krystal> <20110121170847.GH2832@htj.dyndns.org> <1da7491b-6e7d-4453-9c6f-0e7767421ec4@email.android.com> <20110121171914.GJ2832@htj.dyndns.org> <4D3D15AF.30508@zytor.com> <4D67AA06.5090200@cs.helsinki.fi> <20110225131949.GJ24828@htj.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 10:26:43AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 25 Feb 2011, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > > Ping? The current situation is that we're unable to merge a > > > perfectly good SLUB performance optimization because we can't seem > > > to agree on the this_cpu_cmpxchg_double() API. > > > > I thought cl was preparing new version of the patchset. Christoph? > > In order to do that I would have to see a way to improve the > patches. None of the suggestions so far seem to be realizable. I see. For some reason, I thought you and hpa agreed on something and you were writing up the patches. I'll read the thread again. Let's just pick one. It's not like this is an API which will be used througout the tree. Thanks. -- tejun