* Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 29 Aug 2013, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 04:57:43PM +0000, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > > > > We could add a ____this_cpu variant that would be used in the cases we do > > > not want preemption checks? There should not be too many but it will > > > mean a whole lot of new definitions in percpu.h. > > > > Let's get away from underscores as they are meaningless. > > > > A this_cpu_atomic() or other descriptive name would be much more > > appropriate. > > Its not really an atomic operation in the classic sense. > > this_cpu_no_preempt_check_read ? > > The problem that I have is also that a kernel with preemption is not > something that see anywhere these days. Looks more like an academic > exercise? Does this really matter? All the distro I see use > PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY. Performance degradation is significant if massive > amounts of checks and preempt disable/enable points are added to the > kernel. > > Do we agree that it is necessary and useful to add another variant of > this_cpu ops for this? The concern of having too many variants is no > longer there? Adding another variant is not that difficult just code > intensive. Just stop the lame excuses and fix it already. This has come up in the past and you know it: you were told to fix the this_cpu debug checks by Linus as well, yet you didn't ... Don't send crap you know is broken. Thanks, Ingo -- 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
