lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] kmalloc_percpu -- 2 of 2
Dipankar Sarma wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 09:10:16PM +0100, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > I'd suggest that you drop the new allocator until a compelling
> > need for it (in real, live 2.5/2.6 code) has been demonstrated.
>
> Fine with me since atleast one workaround for fragmentation with small
> allocations is known. I can't see anything in 2.5 timeframe
> requiring small per-cpu allocations.
>
> Would you like me to resubmit a simple kmalloc-only version ?
>

I think that would be best.

BTW, looking at the snmp application of this work:

+#define ICMP_INC_STATS_USER_FIELD(offt) \
+ (*((unsigned long *) ((void *) \
+ per_cpu_ptr(icmp_statistics[1], \
+ smp_processor_id())) + offt))++;

This guy is racy on preempt. Just a little bit. It is effectively:

ptr = per_cpu_ptr(...);
(*ptr)++;

On some architectures, `(*ptr)++' is not atomic wrt interrupts. The
CPU could be preempted midway through the increment.

Surely it's not an issue for SNMP stats, but for some applications
such as struct page_state, such a permanent off-by-a-little-bit would
be a showstopper.

So some big loud comments which describe the worthiness of get_cpu_ptr(),
and the potential inaccuracy of per_cpu_ptr would be useful.

And as this is the first application of the kmalloc_precpu infrastructure,
it may be best to convert it to use get_cpu_ptr/put_cpu_ptr.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:31    [W:0.053 / U:36.824 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site