lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 13/16] percpu: remove per_cpu__ prefix.
(microblaze maintainer cc'd, hello)

Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
>> @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ extern void *per_cpu_init(void);
>> * On the positive side, using __ia64_per_cpu_var() instead of __get_cpu_var() is slightly
>> * more efficient.
>> */
>> -#define __ia64_per_cpu_var(var) per_cpu__##var
>> +#define __ia64_per_cpu_var(var) var
>
> IA64 could completely drop the macro? Tony?

Being discussed but I think we should just add sparse annotation there
instead.

>> diff --git a/arch/microblaze/include/asm/entry.h b/arch/microblaze/include/asm/entry.h
>> index 61abbd2..ec89f2a 100644
>> --- a/arch/microblaze/include/asm/entry.h
>> +++ b/arch/microblaze/include/asm/entry.h
>> @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@
>> * places
>> */
>>
>> -#define PER_CPU(var) per_cpu__##var
>> +#define PER_CPU(var) var
>
> Microblaze too.

This macro is used only in assemblies which wouldn't be covered by
sparse so in this case this patch series actually removes protection,
so I wasn't too sure about ripping the macro off. Any ideas what we
can do here? Just kill it?

>> +#define PER_CPU(var, reg) __percpu_mov_op $var, reg
>> +#define PER_CPU_VAR(var) var
>
> Drop X86 PER_CPU_VAR

No can do. SMP variant isn't null op.

>> -#define percpu_read(var) percpu_from_op("mov", per_cpu__##var, \
>> - "m" (per_cpu__##var))
>> -#define percpu_read_stable(var) percpu_from_op("mov", per_cpu__##var, \
>> - "p" (&per_cpu__##var))
>> -#define percpu_write(var, val) percpu_to_op("mov", per_cpu__##var, val)
>> -#define percpu_add(var, val) percpu_to_op("add", per_cpu__##var, val)
>> -#define percpu_sub(var, val) percpu_to_op("sub", per_cpu__##var, val)
>> -#define percpu_and(var, val) percpu_to_op("and", per_cpu__##var, val)
>> -#define percpu_or(var, val) percpu_to_op("or", per_cpu__##var, val)
>> -#define percpu_xor(var, val) percpu_to_op("xor", per_cpu__##var, val)
>> +#define percpu_read(var) percpu_from_op("mov", var, "m" (var))
>> +#define percpu_read_stable(var) percpu_from_op("mov", var, "p" (&(var)))
>> +#define percpu_write(var, val) percpu_to_op("mov", var, val)
>> +#define percpu_add(var, val) percpu_to_op("add", var, val)
>> +#define percpu_sub(var, val) percpu_to_op("sub", var, val)
>> +#define percpu_and(var, val) percpu_to_op("and", var, val)
>> +#define percpu_or(var, val) percpu_to_op("or", var, val)
>> +#define percpu_xor(var, val) percpu_to_op("xor", var, val)
>
> The percpu_xx definitions are now equal to __this_cpu_xx(). They could be
> dropped for the core.

Yeap, will do so with further patches.

>> #define __get_cpu_var(var) \
>> - (*SHIFT_PERCPU_PTR(&per_cpu_var(var), my_cpu_offset))
>> + (*SHIFT_PERCPU_PTR(&(var), my_cpu_offset))
>
> == this_cpu_read(var) or this_cpu_write(var, value)
>
>> #define __raw_get_cpu_var(var) \
>> - (*SHIFT_PERCPU_PTR(&per_cpu_var(var), __my_cpu_offset))
>> + (*SHIFT_PERCPU_PTR(&(var), __my_cpu_offset))
>
> == __this_cpu_read() or this_cpu_write(var, value)
>
> __raw? Combination of __ and raw? Can we clearly define what each means?
>
>> - typeof(per_cpu_var(var)) __tmp_var__; \
>> + typeof(var) __tmp_var__; \
>> __tmp_var__ = get_cpu_var(var); \
>> put_cpu_var(var); \
>> __tmp_var__; \
>
> == this_cpu_read(var)

For all of above comments, yeap, we definitely need to clean all these
up, but let's do that once sparse annotation is working.

> Great work. There is lots more possible cleanup work that could be done
> after this patch has merged.
>
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>

Thanks.

--
tejun


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-10-15 11:37    [W:0.180 / U:4.464 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site