On Tuesday 10 June 2008 05:00:36 Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > Also, the above cpu_local_wrap(...) adds:
> > >
> > > #define cpu_local_wrap(l) \
> > > ({ \
> > > preempt_disable(); \
> > > (l); \
> > > preempt_enable(); \
> > > }) \
> > >
> > > ... and there isn't a non-preemption version that I can find.
> >
> > Yes, this should be fixed. I thought i386 had optimized versions
> > pre-merge, but I was wrong (%gs for per-cpu came later, and noone cleaned
> > up these naive versions). Did you want me to write them?
>
> How can that be fixed? You have no atomic instruction that calculates the
> per cpu address in one go.
Huh? "incl %fs:varname" does exactly this.
> And as long as that is the case you need to
> disable preempt. Otherwise you may increment the per cpu variable of
> another processor because the process was rescheduled after the address
> was calculated but before the increment was done.
But of course, that is not a problem. You make local_t an atomic_t, and then
it doesn't matter which CPU you incremented.
By definition if the caller cared, they would have had premption disabled.
Hope that clarifies,
Rusty.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
