[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch 1/4] net: percpufy frequently used vars -- add percpu_counter_mod_bh
    On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 04:17:33PM -0500, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
    > On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 01:07:26PM -0800, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
    > Last time I checked, all the major architectures had efficient local_t
    > implementations. Most of the RISC CPUs are able to do a load / store
    > conditional implementation that is the same cost (since memory barriers
    > tend to be explicite on powerpc). So why not use it?

    Then, for the batched percpu_counters, we could gain by using local_t only for
    the UP case. But we will have to have a new local_long_t implementation
    for that. Do you think just one use case of local_long_t warrants for a new
    set of apis?

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-03-08 23:27    [W:0.024 / U:3.948 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site