Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1173871 > unrolled thread

Re: [RFC][PATCH 05/13] percpu-rwsem: Optimize readers and reduce global impact

Started byTejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
First post2015-06-29 17:20 +0200
Last post2015-06-29 17:20 +0200
Articles 2 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Re: [RFC][PATCH 05/13] percpu-rwsem: Optimize readers and reduce  global impact Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2015-06-29 17:20 +0200
    Re: [RFC][PATCH 05/13] percpu-rwsem: Optimize readers and reduce  global impact Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-06-29 17:20 +0200

#1173871 — Re: [RFC][PATCH 05/13] percpu-rwsem: Optimize readers and reduce global impact

FromTejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Date2015-06-29 17:20 +0200
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 05/13] percpu-rwsem: Optimize readers and reduce global impact
Message-ID<pGJ0K-6L7-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Hello, Peter.

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:32:19AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Agreed, luckily we already have the infrastructure for this, something
> like so?
> 
> --- a/include/linux/percpu-defs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/percpu-defs.h
> @@ -287,6 +287,16 @@ do {									\
>  	preempt_enable();						\
>  } while (0)
>  
> +#define per_cpu_sum(var)						\
> +({									\
> +	typeof(var) __sum = 0;						\
> +	int cpu;							\

Why not __cpu?

> +	compiletime_assert_atomic_type(__sum);				\
> +	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)					\
> +		__sum += per_cpu(var, cpu);				\
> +	__sum;								\
> +})

But other than that, looks good to me.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1173876

FromPeter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Date2015-06-29 17:20 +0200
Message-ID<pGJ0L-6L7-29@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1173871
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:12:20AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Peter.
> 
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:32:19AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Agreed, luckily we already have the infrastructure for this, something
> > like so?
> > 
> > --- a/include/linux/percpu-defs.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/percpu-defs.h
> > @@ -287,6 +287,16 @@ do {									\
> >  	preempt_enable();						\
> >  } while (0)
> >  
> > +#define per_cpu_sum(var)						\
> > +({									\
> > +	typeof(var) __sum = 0;						\
> > +	int cpu;							\
> 
> Why not __cpu?

I've no idea, __cpu is indeed more consistent, consider it changed.
--
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/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web