On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 04:32:58PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Ravikiran G Thirumalai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 03:43:21PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Benjamin LaHaise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it may make more sense to simply convert local_t into a
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 07:14:26PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
Here's a patch making x86_64 local_t to 64 bits like other 64 bit arches.
This keeps local_t unsigned long. (We can change it to signed value
along with other arches later in one go I guess)
Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 07:14:26PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
Here's a patch making x86_64 local_t to 64 bits like other 64 bit arches.
This keeps local_t unsigned long. (We can change it to signed value
along with other arches
On Thursday 09 March 2006 09:06, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 04:32:58PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Ravikiran G Thirumalai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 03:43:21PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Benjamin LaHaise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 07:41:08PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
Considering that local_t has been broken so that basically nobody
is using it, now is a great time to rethink the types before it
gets fixed and people start using it.
I'm starting to get more concerned as the per-cpu changes that
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 12:26:56PM -0800, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
+static inline void percpu_counter_mod_bh(struct percpu_counter *fbc, long
amount)
+{
+ local_bh_disable();
+ fbc-count += amount;
+ local_bh_enable();
+}
Please use local_t instead, then you don't have to
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 04:17:33PM -0500, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 01:07:26PM -0800, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
Last time I checked, all the major architectures had efficient local_t
implementations. Most of the RISC CPUs are able to do a load / store
conditional
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 02:25:28PM -0800, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
Then, for the batched percpu_counters, we could gain by using local_t only
for
the UP case. But we will have to have a new local_long_t implementation
for that. Do you think just one use case of local_long_t warrants
Ravikiran G Thirumalai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 04:17:33PM -0500, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 01:07:26PM -0800, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
Last time I checked, all the major architectures had efficient local_t
implementations. Most of the
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Once decrapify-asm-generic-localh.patch is merged I think all architectures
can and should use asm-generic/local.h.
err, no. Because that's just atomic_long_t, and that's a locked instruction.
We need to review and fix up those architectures which have
Benjamin LaHaise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 02:25:28PM -0800, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
Then, for the batched percpu_counters, we could gain by using local_t only
for
the UP case. But we will have to have a new local_long_t implementation
for that. Do you
Ravikiran G Thirumalai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 03:43:21PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Benjamin LaHaise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it may make more sense to simply convert local_t into a long,
given
that most of the users will be things like stats
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
x86_64 is signed 32-bit!
I'll change it. You want signed 64bit?
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
x86_64 is signed 32-bit!
I'll change it. You want signed 64bit?
Well it's all random at present. Since the API is defined as unsigned I
guess it's be best to make it unsigned for now. Later, when someone
Add percpu_counter_mod_bh for using these counters safely from
both softirq and process context.
Signed-off by: Pravin B. Shelar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off by: Ravikiran G Thirumalai [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off by: Shai Fultheim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Index:
Ravikiran G Thirumalai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+static inline void percpu_counter_mod_bh(struct percpu_counter *fbc, long
amount)
+{
+local_bh_disable();
+percpu_counter_mod(fbc, amount);
+local_bh_enable();
+}
+
percpu_counter_mod() does preempt_disable(), which is
16 matches
Mail list logo
