Re: [PATCH] modules: Use a better scheme for refcounting

[Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>]

On Friday 16 May 2008 23:41:16 Mike Travis wrote:
> Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Rusty Russell a écrit :
> >>    Any chance I can ask you look at the issue of full dynamic per-cpu
> >> allocation?
> >
> > You mean using alloc_percpu() ? Problem is that current implementation
> > is expensive,

I mean rewriting alloc_percpu :)

> > We probably can change this to dynamic per-cpu as soon as Mike or
> > Christopher finish their work on new dynamic per-cpu implementation ?
>
> Yes, the zero-based percpu variables followed by the cpu_alloc patch should
> provide this and shrink the code quite well, including in some cases
> removing locking requirements (because the resultant instructions will be
> atomic.)

Ah, I hadn't realized that Mike was already working on this.  Mike, have you 
published patches already?

Thanks,
Rusty.