Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 20 Jan 2011 19:18:12 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH -v10 0/4] Lock-less list | From | huang ying <> |
| |
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 16:52 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: >> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:45:58 +0800 >> Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote: >> >> > On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 05:55 +0800, Andrew Morton wrote: >> > > I'm trying to remember why we're talking about this. >> > > >> > > You had an ACPI-based "hardware error reporting" thing. And that >> > > required an nmi-context memory allocator. And that required a >> > > "lockless" list implementation. >> > > >> > > Yes? >> > >> > Yes. But the "lockless" list implementation is general, it can be used >> > by other part of kernel too, such as irq_work and xlist in >> > net/rds/xlist.h in the patchset. >> >> Well. Lots of things are general but that doesn't mean we toss them >> into the kernel when we already have plenty of infrastructure to handle >> that sort of thing. >> >> otoh, hoisting xlist.h out of net/rds and making it generally available >> is a good thing. >> >> otooh, net/rds/ probably didn't need xlist at all and could have used >> existing general code. >> >> So... I'd say that unless and until the NMI-context allocator is >> merged, the case for merging the lockless list code is a bit marginal? >> Or have you identified other code sites which could use llist and which >> would gain some benefit from migrating? > > In fact, I have a patch ready and waiting to revert the whole irq_work > stuff, that too seems to be a superfluous generalization.
What do you plan to replace irq_work? I plan to use it in APEI NMI handler and MCE handler.
Best Regards, Huang Ying -- 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/
| |