On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Nitin Gupta wrote:
>
>> -static void zram_stat_inc(u32 *v)
>> +static void zram_add_stat(struct zram *zram,
>> + enum zram_stats_index idx, s64 val)
>> {
>> - *v = *v + 1;
>> + struct zram_stats_cpu *stats;
>> +
>> + preempt_disable();
>> + stats = __this_cpu_ptr(zram->stats);
>> + u64_stats_update_begin(&stats->syncp);
>> + stats->count[idx] += val;
>> + u64_stats_update_end(&stats->syncp);
>> + preempt_enable();
>
> Maybe do
>
> #define zram_add_stat(zram, index, val)
> this_cpu_add(zram->stats->count[index], val)
>
> instead? It creates an add in a single "atomic" per cpu instruction and
> deals with the fallback scenarios for processors that cannot handle 64
> bit adds.
>
>
Yes, this_cpu_add() seems sufficient. I can't recall why I used u64_stats_*
but if it's not required for atomic access to 64-bit then why was it added to
the mainline in the first place?
Thanks,
Nitin
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href