From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: eric.dumazet@gmail.com (Eric Dumazet) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 19:14:19 +0100 Subject: [BUG] 2.6.37-rc3 massive interactivity regression on ARM In-Reply-To: <1292003346.13513.30.camel@laptop> References: <20101208142814.GE9777@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <1291851079-27061-1-git-send-email-venki@google.com> <1291899120.29292.7.camel@twins> <1291917330.6803.7.camel@twins> <1291920939.6803.38.camel@twins> <1291936593.13513.3.camel@laptop> <1291975704.6803.59.camel@twins> <1291987065.6803.151.camel@twins> <1291987635.6803.161.camel@twins> <1291988866.6803.171.camel@twins> <1292001500.3580.268.camel@edumazet-laptop> <1292003346.13513.30.camel@laptop> Message-ID: <1292004859.3580.387.camel@edumazet-laptop> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Le vendredi 10 d?cembre 2010 ? 18:49 +0100, Peter Zijlstra a ?crit : > On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 18:18 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > Le vendredi 10 d?cembre 2010 ? 14:47 +0100, Peter Zijlstra a ?crit : > > > Also irq_time_write_begin() and irq_time_write_end() could be faster > > (called for current cpu) > > > > static inline void irq_time_write_begin(void) > > { > > __this_cpu_inc(irq_time_seq.sequence); > > smp_wmb(); > > } > > > > static inline void irq_time_write_end(void) > > { > > smp_wmb(); > > __this_cpu_inc(irq_time_seq.sequence); > > } > > Yeah, but that kinda defeats the purpose of having it implemented in > seqlock.h. Ideally we'd teach gcc about these long pointers and have > something like: > > write_seqcount_begin(&this_cpu_read(irq_time_seq)); > > do the right thing. gcc wont be able to do this yet (%fs/%gs selectors) But we can provide this_cpu_write_seqcount_{begin|end}() static inline void this_cpu_write_seqcount_begin(seqcount_t *s) { __this_cpu_inc(s->sequence); smp_wmb(); }