From: Peter Chubb <peter@chubb.wattle.id.au>
To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [Linux-ia64] Re: A comment on the 2.5.29 patch
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 05:08:30 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <marc-linux-ia64-105590701905925@msgid-missing> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <marc-linux-ia64-105590701905924@msgid-missing>
>>>>> "David" = David Mosberger <davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com> writes:
>>>>> On Thu, 8 Aug 2002 13:38:03 +1000, Peter Chubb <peter@chubb.wattle.id.au> said:
Peter> Hi David,
Peter> I can't see the point of moving the declaration of extern
Peter> irq_desc_t irq_desc [NR_IRQS]; from include/linux/irq.h into
Peter> asm-i386/hw_irq.,
David> The idea is simple: remove irq_desc[] and replace it with an
David> irq_desc() macro, so that platforms have the option to
David> implement the table any way they see fit (e.g., distributed
David> across NUMA nodes).
I see... but then the change is more pervasive than here
Peter> And my remaining comment is that I'm not sure why the changes
Peter> to the softirq() names were made. A rose by any name would
Peter> smell as sweet...
David> Specifics please? There are no just-for-fun renames, but
David> again, it could be a bad merge or something along those lines.
sorry, I meant changes in softirq.c to yhe
softirq_pending(cpu)->local_softirq_pending().
diff -Nru a/include/linux/irq_cpustat.h b/include/linux/irq_cpustat.h
--- a/include/linux/irq_cpustat.h Thu Aug 1 01:08:13 2002
+++ b/include/linux/irq_cpustat.h Thu Aug 1 01:08:13 2002
@@ -33,5 +33,12 @@
#define ksoftirqd_task(cpu) __IRQ_STAT((cpu), __ksoftirqd_task)
/* arch dependent irq_stat fields */
#define nmi_count(cpu) __IRQ_STAT((cpu), __nmi_count) /* i386, ia64 */
+
+#define local_hardirq_trylock() hardirq_trylock(smp_processor_id())
+#define local_hardirq_endlock() hardirq_trylock(smp_processor_id())
+#define local_irq_enter(irq) irq_enter(smp_processor_id(), (irq))
+#define local_irq_exit(irq) irq_exit(smp_processor_id(), (irq))
+#define local_softirq_pending() softirq_pending(smp_processor_id())
+#define local_ksoftirqd_task() ksoftirqd_task(smp_processor_id())
----
* local_hardirq_{end,try}lock() are not used anywhere (yet) although
they used to be.
* local_irq_{enter,exit}() is not used anywhere I could find.
* In kernel/softirq.c smp_processor_id() is already assigned to a
local variable
@@ -69,7 +72,7 @@
local_irq_save(flags);
cpu = smp_processor_id();
- pending = softirq_pending(cpu);
+ pending = local_softirq_pending();
if (pending) {
struct softirq_action *h;
etc.
There's another definition of local_softirq_pending() at
./include/asm-ia64/hardirq.h:24:#define local_softirq_pending() \
(local_cpu_data->softirq_pending)
likewise for local_ksoftirqd_task().
There's a chance that the vesion in hardirq.h could be more efficient,
but it won't necessarily work on other architectures.
Anyway, I *know* that the patch is WIP -- that's why I thought it was
worth giving some feedback early (before the kernel has moved on
another 10 versions, and the patch is no longer relevant)
--
Dr Peter Chubb peterc@gelato.unsw.edu.au
You are lost in a maze of BitKeeper repositories, all almost the same.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-08-08 5:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-08-08 4:37 [Linux-ia64] Re: A comment on the 2.5.29 patch David Mosberger
2002-08-08 5:08 ` Peter Chubb [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=marc-linux-ia64-105590701905925@msgid-missing \
--to=peter@chubb.wattle.id.au \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox