From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932971AbbCQQgI (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:36:08 -0400
Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.153]:42993 "EHLO
	e35.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754366AbbCQQgF (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:36:05 -0400
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 09:35:55 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
        Nicholas Miell <nmiell@comcast.net>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sys_membarrier(): system/process-wide memory barrier
 (x86) (v12)
Message-ID: <20150317163555.GJ3589@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20150316141939.GE21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <1203077851.9491.1426520636551.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
 <20150316172104.GH21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <1003922584.10662.1426532015839.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
 <20150316205435.GJ21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <910572156.13900.1426556725438.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
 <20150316222611.782cc0e4@grimm.local.home>
 <20150317064055.GK2896@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20150317114411.GE3589@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20150317101009.78442f30@gandalf.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150317101009.78442f30@gandalf.local.home>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
x-cbid: 15031716-0013-0000-0000-000009799213
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:10:09AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 04:44:11 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 07:40:56AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:26:11PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > > As I recently found out that this_cpu_read/write() is not that nice on
> > > > all architectures,
> > > 
> > > In fact, they only really work well on x86. Aargh64 seems to have a semi
> > > usable version, but mostly its quite horrible indeed.
> > 
> > Yeah, if you are in a preempt-disabled region, __this_cpu_read() and
> > __this_cpu_write() generate much better code on most platforms.
> 
> I was just having this discussion with Christoph. I originally switched
> to using this_cpu_ptr(), but I'll try __this_cpu* instead. I think
> Christoph recommended that too.

Sounds good to me!  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul