From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: Poll about irqsafe_cpu_add and others Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:21:33 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: References: <1300371834.6315.93.camel@edumazet-laptop> <20110317.081420.71114992.davem@davemloft.net> <1300380801.6315.306.camel@edumazet-laptop> <1300386569.6315.404.camel@edumazet-laptop> <1300388139.6315.418.camel@edumazet-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: Received: from smtp110.prem.mail.ac4.yahoo.com ([76.13.13.93]:20788 "HELO smtp110.prem.mail.ac4.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755285Ab1CQTVi (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Mar 2011 15:21:38 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1300388139.6315.418.camel@edumazet-laptop> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Eric Dumazet Cc: David Miller , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 17 Mar 2011, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > I wonder why we dont use : > > > > > > addl $0x2,%fs:xt_u64 > > > addcl $0x0,%fs:xt_u64+4 > > > > The compiler is fed the following > > > > *__this_cpu_ptr(xt_u64) += 2 > > > > __this_cpu_ptr makes it: > > > > *(xt_u64 + __my_cpu_offset) += 2 > > > > So the compiler calculates the address first and then increments it. > > > > The compiler could optimize this I think. Wonder why that does not happen. > > Compiler is really forced to compute addr, thats why. > > Hmm, we should not fallback to generic ops I think, but tweak > > percpu_add_op() { percpu_add_op() is not used. This is a 64 bit operation on a 32 bit machine thus we fall back to this_cpu_generic_to_op() #define __this_cpu_generic_to_op(pcp, val, op) \ do { \ *__this_cpu_ptr(&(pcp)) op val; \ } while (0)