Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:55:21 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [patch] add optimized generic percpu accessors |
| |
* Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 January 2009 20:08:34 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote: > > > > > Tejun Heo wrote: > > > > > > > > I think the two changes aren't exclusive at all. The order of things > > > > could be different but in the end, yeah, zero-based percpu symbols w/ > > > > mostly empty pda is the goal. > > > > > > > >> Once the PDA is empty, I'll base %gs at the start of the per-cpu > > > >> area. I've been working out the bugs with the last patch > > > >> (zero-basing the percpu area) before submitting, but I probably > > > >> won't have the time until this weekend to polish it off. I could > > > >> submit all but the last patch if you'd like. > > > > > > > > Any chance you can rebase those patches on top of mine? If you don't > > > > have time, just send them to me, I'll try to integrate them this week. > > > > > > > > > > A merged tree here would be absolutely wonderful. I've kept an eye on > > > the discussion so far, but it looks like you guys are handling it fine. > > > > agreed, it looks really good. > > > > Tejun, could you please also add the patch below to your lineup too? > > > > It is an optimization and a cleanup, and adds the following new generic > > percpu methods: > > > > percpu_read() > > I already have this in my patch series.
hm, where is that exactly? Do you have a commit ID (or could send a patch) that i could have a look at?
> Frankly, it starts to get marginal in generic code after percpu_read(), > so I didn't do them (and the per-cpu interfaces are already pretty > wide). > > Tejun, is now a good time to rebase my alloc_percpu series on top of > yours? I'm more than happy to hand them over to someone with more > cycles...
We can pick it up into a topic in -tip if you dont mind.
Ingo
| |