From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Final per cpu consistency patch for -next or late in 3.19 merge period
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 17:32:32 +0000 (UTC) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <940407620.22325.1417541552737.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141202171102.GC10918@htj.dyndns.org>
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tejun Heo" <htejun@gmail.com>
> To: "Christoph Lameter" <cl@linux.com>
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>, "Andrew Morton"
> <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 12:11:02 PM
> Subject: Re: Final per cpu consistency patch for -next or late in 3.19 merge period
>
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 10:57:50AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Dec 2014, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >
> > > Can you please update Documentation/local_ops.txt and comments which
> > > contain __get_cpu_var() and send the updated patch to Andrew?
> >
> > Owww.... local_* ops are exotic operations that should no longer be
> > regularly used. This_cpu ops create less overhead and
> > are simpler to use. Lets merge the prior patch as is and then add this
> > documentation patch which may cause some additional discussion.
>
> Sure, I just wanna make sure we don't have dangling references to
> __get_cpu_var() which no longer exists. There are also a couple
> places where comment text refers to it. Let's please take care of
> them too.
If I understand correctly, __get_cpu_var() is being deprecated ?
If this_cpu_ptr() is semantically equivalent to __get_cpu_var(), we can do a
wrapper in lttng-modules and move to the new name, no worries there.
Background:
LTTng-modules (out of tree) still uses __get_cpu_var() for our per-cpu
nesting counter (internal safety net), and our per-cpu last_tsc value
tracking since 3.17.
We also rely on local_t atomic operations to interact with each per-cpu
ring buffer. Since we already need to get the CPU number to know which
dynamically allocated ring buffer we need to work with, and since we're
always in preempt disabled context, there is not much gain in changing
the entire design to move from local_t ops to this_cpu() ops.
Thanks,
Mathieu
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun
>
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-12-02 17:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-11-28 18:31 Final per cpu consistency patch for -next or late in 3.19 merge period Christoph Lameter
2014-12-02 16:40 ` Tejun Heo
2014-12-02 16:57 ` Christoph Lameter
2014-12-02 17:11 ` Tejun Heo
2014-12-02 17:32 ` Mathieu Desnoyers [this message]
2014-12-02 17:51 ` Christoph Lameter
2014-12-02 17:33 ` Christoph Lameter
2014-12-02 19:27 ` Luck, Tony
2014-12-02 17:34 ` 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=940407620.22325.1417541552737.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com \
--to=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=htejun@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@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