Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Introduce checks for preemptable code for this_cpu_read/write() | From | Valdis.Kletnieks@vt ... | Date | Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:44:56 -0400 |
| |
On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 23:06:17 EDT, Steven Rostedt said:
> It is really confusing to know which version to use. I'm confused by the > this_cpu_*() compared with __this_cpu_*(). I'm guessing that most places > should use __this_cpu*(). But really this_cpu() should be the default, > and the places that can have it outside of preemption should have > another name. Maybe use the raw_this_cpu() or safe_this_cpu(), as there > is an irqsafe_this_cpu(). Maybe make a preemptsafe_cpu_*(). There should > only be a very few locations that are OK to have preemption enabled when > calling the this_cpu() code. Lets have those have the funny names and > not be the default "this_cpu_*()".
What's the latency hit on those very few locations if we simply put our collective foot down and not support a preemptable version of this_cpu_*()? "Yes, you *could* preempt here, but for our collective sanity that's not supported"...
> All this_cpu*() code, except the funny named ones, should make sure > preemption is disabled, otherwise give a nasty warning. As that is > usually a bug if you are using a per cpu variable and can migrate away. > The next reference to that value may be incorrect.
You get a much prettier diffstat if you just nuke the funny named ones. ;)
But of course it's early morning and I'm still caffeine-deficient and probably overlooking some crucial use case. ;)
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |