On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 04:32:50PM +0800, Shan Wei wrote:
> Shan Wei said, at 2012/11/13 9:52:
> > From: Shan Wei <[email protected]>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shan Wei <[email protected]>
> > Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
>
> Paul, would you like to pick it up to your tree?
Hello, Shan Wei,
If you either show me some significant performance benefits or get me
an independent Tested-by, in both cases on a range of hardware (e.g.,
x86 on the one hand and ARM or Power on the other), then I will queue it.
I wasn't prioritizing this one very high because it does not appear
to be on any sort of fastpath. If I am wrong about that, then you
have a good performance-benefit case, right? ;-)
Thanx, Paul
> > ---
> > no changes vs v3,v2.
> > ---
> > kernel/rcutree.c | 2 +-
> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
> > index 74df86b..441b945 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
> > @@ -1960,7 +1960,7 @@ static void force_quiescent_state(struct rcu_state
> > *rsp)
> > struct rcu_node *rnp_old = NULL;
> >
> > /* Funnel through hierarchy to reduce memory contention. */
> > - rnp = per_cpu_ptr(rsp->rda, raw_smp_processor_id())->mynode;
> > + rnp = __this_cpu_read(rsp->rda->mynode);
> > for (; rnp != NULL; rnp = rnp->parent) {
> > ret = (ACCESS_ONCE(rsp->gp_flags) & RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS) ||
> > !raw_spin_trylock(&rnp->fqslock);
> >
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
