From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@gentwo.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/5] mm: Switch mod_state() to __this_cpu_read()
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 13:08:36 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1316538516.29966.103.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1109201806220.2723@ionos>
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 18:51 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> this_cpu_*() is patently wrong. It should be: random_cpu_*() or
> any_cpu_*(). This way you could have avoided confusion in the first
> place and made it entirely clear what the interfaces are about.
Thinking about this, my vote is for "any_cpu_*()". I initially liked my
own snapshot_cpu_*(), and even random_cpu_*() is humorous. But truly,
the "any_cpu_*()" has the best meaning. As you really don't seem to care
about which CPU you access. Sure you can document something like:
/*
* Will modify the per cpu data on the current CPU, but there is no
* guarantee which CPU you may be on, as you can migrate just before
* or after calling this function. Only the scope of this function
* will be atomic to the CPU the task is currently on, but no guarantee
* before or after the function. If you care about that, disable
* preemption and use the this_cpu_*() variants.
*/
-- Steve
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-09-20 17:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 73+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-19 21:20 [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Introduce checks for preemptable code for this_cpu_read/write() Steven Rostedt
2011-09-19 21:20 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/5] x86: Remove const_udelay() caring about which cpu var it uses Steven Rostedt
2011-09-19 21:51 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-19 23:31 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-19 21:20 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/5] mm: Switch mod_state() to __this_cpu_read() Steven Rostedt
2011-09-19 22:02 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-19 23:48 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 14:46 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-20 15:16 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 15:54 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-20 16:07 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 22:19 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2011-09-20 13:49 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-09-20 14:01 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 14:51 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-20 15:11 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 15:59 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-20 16:03 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 16:07 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-20 15:27 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-09-20 16:02 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-20 16:51 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-09-20 17:08 ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2011-09-19 21:20 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/5] memcg: Disable preemption in memcg_check_events() Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 14:20 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-09-20 14:24 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-09-20 14:33 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-24 0:46 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-19 21:20 ` [RFC][PATCH 4/5] printk: Have wake_up_klogd() use __this_cpu_write() Steven Rostedt
2011-09-19 21:54 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-19 23:33 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 14:54 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-20 14:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-19 21:20 ` [RFC][PATCH 5/5] percpu: Add preempt checks back into this_cpu_read/write() Steven Rostedt
2011-09-19 21:49 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Introduce checks for preemptable code for this_cpu_read/write() Christoph Lameter
2011-09-20 3:06 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 12:44 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2011-09-20 13:51 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-09-20 14:58 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-20 15:17 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 14:57 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-20 15:19 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 16:08 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-20 16:31 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 16:56 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 17:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-20 17:15 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 17:25 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2011-09-20 18:03 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 18:12 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2011-09-20 18:27 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 18:34 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2011-09-20 22:32 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2011-09-20 22:17 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2011-09-21 1:33 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 15:46 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2011-09-20 16:00 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 16:10 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-20 16:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-20 18:54 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-21 15:16 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-21 15:31 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-21 15:59 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-21 16:12 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-21 16:32 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-09-20 2:20 ` Andi Kleen
2011-09-20 3:12 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 3:17 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 8:32 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-09-20 12:10 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 15:03 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-20 15:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-20 16:05 ` Christoph Lameter
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1316538516.29966.103.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com \
--to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@gentwo.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=htejun@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®