From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] net: percpufy frequently used vars -- add percpu_counter_mod_bh Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 14:25:28 -0800 Message-ID: <20060308222528.GE4493@localhost.localdomain> References: <20060308015808.GA9062@localhost.localdomain> <20060308015934.GB9062@localhost.localdomain> <20060307181301.4dd6aa96.akpm@osdl.org> <20060308202656.GA4493@localhost.localdomain> <20060308203642.GZ5410@kvack.org> <20060308210726.GD4493@localhost.localdomain> <20060308211733.GA5410@kvack.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, shai@scalex86.org Return-path: To: Benjamin LaHaise Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060308211733.GA5410@kvack.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 04:17:33PM -0500, Benjamin LaHaise wrote: > On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 01:07:26PM -0800, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote: > > Last time I checked, all the major architectures had efficient local_t > implementations. Most of the RISC CPUs are able to do a load / store > conditional implementation that is the same cost (since memory barriers > tend to be explicite on powerpc). So why not use it? Then, for the batched percpu_counters, we could gain by using local_t only for the UP case. But we will have to have a new local_long_t implementation for that. Do you think just one use case of local_long_t warrants for a new set of apis? Kiran