Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 18 Mar 2002 08:35:11 +0100 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] 2.5.1-pre5: per-cpu areas |
| |
On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 06:17:32PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 10:13:09 +0100 > Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 03:07:27PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > They must return an lvalue, otherwise they're useless for 50% of cases > > > (ie. assignment). x86_64 can still use its own mechanism for > > > arch-specific per-cpu data, of course. > > > > Assignment should use an own macro (set_this_cpu()) or use per_cpu(). > > So, we'd have "get_this_cpu(x)" and "set_this_cpu(x, y)". So far, so good. > > struct myinfo > { > int x; > int y; > }; > > static struct myinfo mystuff __per_cpu_data; > > Now how do we set mystuff.x on this CPU?
set_this_cpu(mystuff.x, y) could be eventually supported properly, it just needs compiler work (and before that can use address calculation & reference)
&this_cpu(mystuff, y) will always be slow.
-Andi
- 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/
| |