lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] percpu: convert SNMP mibs to new infra
Date
On Thursday 02 April 2009 15:49:19 Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Rusty Russell a écrit :
> > eg. on S/390, atomic_inc is a win over the two-counter version. On Sparc,
> > two-counter wins. On x86, inc wins (obviously).
> >
> > But efforts to create a single primitive have been problematic: maybe
> > open-coding it like this is the Right Thing.
>
> I tried to find a generic CONFIG_ define that would annonce that an arche
> has a fast percpu_add() implementation. (faster than __raw_get_cpu_var,
> for example, when we already are in a preempt disabled section)

Nope, we don't have one. It was supposed to work like this:
DEFINE_PER_CPU(local_t, counter);

cpu_local_inc(counter);

That would do incl in x86, local_t could even be a long[3] (one for hardirq,
one for softirq, one for user context). But there were issues:

1) It didn't work on dynamic percpu allocs, which was much of the interesting
use (Tejun is fixing this bit right now)
2) The x86 version wasn't optimized anyway,
3) Everyone did atomic_long_inc(), so the ftrace code assumed it would be nmi
safe (tho atomic_t isn't nmi-safe on some archs anyway), so the long[3]
method would break them,
4) The long[3] version was overkill for networking, which doesn't need hardirq
so we'd want another variant of local_t plus all the ops,
5) Some people didn't want long: Christoph had a more generic but more complex
version,
6) It's still not used anywhere in the tree (tho local_t is), so there's no
reason to stick to the current semantics.

> For example, net/ipv4/route.c has :
>
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct rt_cache_stat, rt_cache_stat);
> #define RT_CACHE_STAT_INC(field) \
> (__raw_get_cpu_var(rt_cache_stat).field++)
>
> We could use percpu_add(rt_cache_stat.field, 1) instead, only if percpu_add()
> is not the generic one.

Yep, but this one is different from the SNMP stats which needs softirq vs
user context safety. This is where I start wondering how many interfaces
we're going to have...

Sorry to add more questions than answers :(
Rusty.
--
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: 2009-04-02 13:49    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site