[lkml]   [2008]   [Dec]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    Hi Rusty,

    I'm trying to make the ring buffers lockless and reentrant. It is slowly
    going that way. The local_add_return is to reserve a part of the ring
    buffer even when an interrupt can come in and reserver part of that same
    ring buffer. The atomic add here has to only be atomic with respect to

    On intel, there is no reason to use a LOCK increment, since the ring
    buffers are per cpu. A simple asm inc would work. I was thinking that is
    what local_add_return gives me. I could replace the local_add_returns with
    atomic_add_return, but that just seems to be adding overhead for archs
    that do not need it.

    Shouldn't local_add_return be a way for archs that can increment a memory
    location atomically against interrupts to use that infrastructure? It can
    simply fall back to atomic_add_return for those archs that do not have
    a lesser equivalent of atomic_add_return.

    -- Steve

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-12-15 14:49    [W:0.040 / U:0.172 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site