public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>, Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>
Subject: Re: [this_cpu_xx V6 3/7] Use this_cpu operations in slub
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 12:11:23 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4ADA875B.1070102@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0910161232420.6120@gentwo.org>

Hello, Christoph.

Christoph Lameter wrote:
>> The biggest grief I have is that the meaning of __ is different among
>> different accessors.  If that can be cleared up, we would be in much
>> better shape without adding any extra macros.  Can we just remove all
>> __'s and use meaningful pre or suffixes like raw or irq or whatever?
> 
> It currently means that we do not deal with preempt and do not check for
> preemption. That is consistent.

If you define it inclusively, it can be consistent.

> Sure we could change the API to have even more macros than the large
> amount it already has so that we can check for proper preempt disablement.
> 
> I guess that would mean adding
> 
> raw_nopreempt_this_cpu_xx  and nopreempt_this_cpu_xx variants? The thing
> gets huge. I think we could just leave it. __ suggests that serialization
> and checking is not performed like in the full versions and that is true.

I don't think we'll need to add new variants.  Just renaming existing
ones so that they have more specific pre/suffix should make things
clearer.  I'll give a shot at that once the sparse annotation patchset
is merged.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

  reply	other threads:[~2009-10-18  3:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-10-07 21:10 [this_cpu_xx V6 0/7] Introduce per cpu atomic operations and avoid per cpu address arithmetic cl
2009-10-07 21:10 ` [this_cpu_xx V6 1/7] this_cpu_ops: page allocator conversion cl
2009-10-08 10:38   ` Tejun Heo
2009-10-08 10:40     ` Tejun Heo
2009-10-08 16:15     ` Christoph Lameter
2009-10-08 10:53   ` Mel Gorman
2009-10-07 21:10 ` [this_cpu_xx V6 2/7] this_cpu ops: Remove pageset_notifier cl
2009-10-07 21:10 ` [this_cpu_xx V6 3/7] Use this_cpu operations in slub cl
2009-10-12 10:19   ` Tejun Heo
2009-10-12 10:21     ` Tejun Heo
2009-10-12 14:54     ` Christoph Lameter
2009-10-13  2:13       ` Tejun Heo
2009-10-13 14:41         ` Christoph Lameter
2009-10-13 14:56           ` Tejun Heo
2009-10-13 15:20             ` Christoph Lameter
2009-10-14  1:57               ` Tejun Heo
2009-10-14 14:14                 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-10-15  7:47                   ` Tejun Heo
2009-10-16 16:44                     ` Christoph Lameter
2009-10-18  3:11                       ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2009-10-07 21:10 ` [this_cpu_xx V6 4/7] SLUB: Get rid of dynamic DMA kmalloc cache allocation cl
2009-10-13 18:48   ` [FIX] patch "SLUB: Get rid of dynamic DMA kmalloc cache allocation" Christoph Lameter
2009-10-07 21:10 ` [this_cpu_xx V6 5/7] this_cpu: Remove slub kmem_cache fields cl
2009-10-07 23:10   ` Christoph Lameter
2009-10-07 21:10 ` [this_cpu_xx V6 6/7] Make slub statistics use this_cpu_inc cl
2009-10-07 21:10 ` [this_cpu_xx V6 7/7] this_cpu: slub aggressive use of this_cpu operations in the hotpaths cl
2009-10-12 10:40   ` Tejun Heo
2009-10-12 13:14     ` Pekka Enberg
2009-10-12 14:55       ` Christoph Lameter
2009-10-13  9:45       ` David Rientjes
2009-10-13 14:43         ` Christoph Lameter
2009-10-13 19:14           ` Christoph Lameter
2009-10-13 19:44             ` Pekka Enberg
2009-10-13 19:48               ` Christoph Lameter
2009-10-13 20:15                 ` David Rientjes
2009-10-13 20:28                   ` Christoph Lameter
2009-10-13 22:53                     ` David Rientjes
2009-10-14 13:34                       ` Mel Gorman
2009-10-14 14:08                         ` Christoph Lameter
2009-10-14 15:49                           ` Mel Gorman
2009-10-14 15:53                             ` Pekka Enberg
2009-10-14 15:56                               ` Christoph Lameter
2009-10-14 16:14                                 ` Pekka Enberg
2009-10-14 18:19                                   ` Christoph Lameter
2009-10-16 10:50                                 ` Mel Gorman
2009-10-16 18:40                                   ` David Rientjes
2009-10-15  9:03                         ` David Rientjes
2009-10-16 16:45                           ` Christoph Lameter
2009-10-16 18:43                             ` David Rientjes
2009-10-16 18:50                               ` Christoph Lameter
2009-10-13 20:25               ` Christoph Lameter
2009-10-14  1:33           ` David Rientjes
2009-10-13 15:40 ` [this_cpu_xx V6 0/7] Introduce per cpu atomic operations and avoid per cpu address arithmetic Mel Gorman
2009-10-13 15:45   ` Christoph Lameter
2009-10-13 16:09     ` Mel Gorman
2009-10-13 17:17       ` Christoph Lameter

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=4ADA875B.1070102@kernel.org \
    --to=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
    --cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
    --cc=penberg@cs.helsinki.fi \
    /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