From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: peterz@infradead.org (Peter Zijlstra) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 19:46:28 +0100 Subject: [BUG] 2.6.37-rc3 massive interactivity regression on ARM In-Reply-To: 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> <1292004859.3580.387.camel@edumazet-laptop> Message-ID: <1292006788.13513.43.camel@laptop> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 12:39 -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 10 Dec 2010, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > > 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) > > The kernel can do that using the __percpu annotation. That's not true: # define __percpu Its a complete NOP. > > But we can provide this_cpu_write_seqcount_{begin|end}() > > No we cannot do hat. this_cpu ops are for per cpu data and not for locking > values shared between processors. We have a mechanism for passing per cpu > pointers with a corresponding annotation. -enoparse, its not locking anything, is a per-cpu sequence count.