lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] add optimized generic percpu accessors

* Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > The new ops are a pretty nice and clean solution i think.
> >
> > Firstly, accessing the current CPU is the only safe shortcut anyway (there
> > is where we can do %fs/%gs / rip-relative addressing modes), and the
> > generic per_cpu() APIs dont really provide that guarantee for us. We might
> > be able to hook into __get_cpu_var() but those both require to be an
> > lvalue and are also relatively rarely used.
> >
> > So introducing the new, rather straightforward APIs and using them
> > wherever they matter for performance is good. Your patchset already shaved
> > off an instruction from ordinary per_cpu() accesses, so it's all moving
> > rather close to the most-optimal situation already.
>
> Yeah, I don't think we can do much better than those ops. I have two
> issues tho.
>
> 1. percpu_and() is missing. I added it for completeness's sake.

Sure - it would be commonly used as well. Perhaps we dont need
percpu_xor() at all? (or and and ops already give a complete algebra)

> 2. The generic percpu_op() should be local to the cpu, so it should
> expand to...
>
> do { get_cpu_var(var) OP (val); put_cpu_var(var) } while (0)
>
> as the original x86_OP_percpu() did. Right?
>
> Thanks.

hm, that removes much of its appeal - a preempt off+on sequence is quite
bloaty. Most percpu usage sites are already within critical sections.

I think they are more analogous to per_cpu(var, cpu), which does not
disable preemption either. There's no 'get/put' in them, which signals
that they dont auto-disable preemption.

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-15 13:29    [W:0.135 / U:0.184 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site