On Tuesday 10 June 2008 13:18:25 Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Tue, 10 Jun 2008, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > Right that is what the cpu alloc patches do. So you could implement > > > cpu_local_inc on top of some of the cpu alloc patches. > > > > Or you could just implement it today as a standalone patch. > > You need at least the zero basing to enable the use of the segment > register on x86_64. Indeed. Works for i386 as is, but 64 bit will need that patch. > > > But then the whole point of local_t is gone. Why not use atomic_t in > > > the first place? > > > > Because some archs can do better. > > The argument does not make any sense. First you want to use atomic_t then > not? You're being obtuse. See previous mail about the three possible implementations of local_t, and the comment in asm-generic/local.h. The paths forward are clear: 1) Improve x86 local_t (mostly orthogonal to the others, but useful). 2) Implement extensible per-cpu areas. 3) Generalize per-cpu accessors. 4) Extend or replace the module.c per-cpu allocator to alloc from the other areas. 5) Convert alloc_percpu et al. to use the new code. 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
