Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Introduce checks for preemptable code for this_cpu_read/write()

Mathieu Desnoyers
2011-09-20T17:25:34Z

* Steven Rostedt (rostedt@goodmis.org) wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 19:09 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 12:56 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > random_cpu_*() // Thomas's idea
> >
> > I like this one best..
>
> I like it too, but not really the most appropriate.
>
> >
> > But you forgot do deal with the irqsafe_cpu() crap, that's the same
> > brainfart as this_cpu() but more expensive because it frobs IRQ state.
>
> But irqsafe_cpu_*() doesn't really have any real meaning to me. That is
> something when I see it, I go and read the comments about it. It doesn't
> contain "this_cpu" which is something that seems to explain what it is,
> even though the obvious is not what it is.

Throwing ideas from the IRC discussion into the mix (Paul McKenney and I
came up with it at the same time):

preempt_protected_percpu_*()
irq_protected_percpu_*()

Seems to be quite self-explanatory.

Thanks,

Mathieu

--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.