Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 19 May 2008 09:39:02 -0700 (PDT) | From | Christoph Lameter <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] modules: Use a better scheme for refcounting |
| |
On Sat, 17 May 2008, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > You mean using alloc_percpu() ? Problem is that current implementation > > > is expensive, > > I mean rewriting alloc_percpu :)
cpu_alooc is going to replace that completely. > > > > We probably can change this to dynamic per-cpu as soon as Mike or > > > Christopher finish their work on new dynamic per-cpu implementation ? > > > > Yes, the zero-based percpu variables followed by the cpu_alloc patch should > > provide this and shrink the code quite well, including in some cases > > removing locking requirements (because the resultant instructions will be > > atomic.) > > Ah, I hadn't realized that Mike was already working on this. Mike, have you > published patches already?
He is reworking my patches. He can use some encouragement though...
| |