mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Mosberger <davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Cc: davidm@hpl.hp.com, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
	Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <ak@suse.de>
Subject: Re: per_cpu fixes
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:22:05 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <16141.44749.105050.260268@napali.hpl.hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307101112320.16847-100000@home.osdl.org>

>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:15:25 -0700 (PDT), Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> said:

  Linus> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, David Mosberger wrote:
  >> 
  >> You mean there would be three primitives:
  >> 
  >> (1) get value from a per-CPU variable
  >> (2) set value of a per-CPU variable
  >> (3) get the (canonical) address of a per-CPU variable

  Linus> Argh.

  Linus> We'd better have the rule that if there are any virtual
  Linus> caches or other issues, then the "canonical address" had
  Linus> better be the _only_ address (or at least any virtual
  Linus> remapping has to be done in such a way that it never causes
  Linus> aliasing or other performance problems with the canonical
  Linus> address).

  Linus> This is already turning fairly ugly, and I just don't want to
  Linus> see even more ugly rules like "you can't mix direct accesses
  Linus> with pointer accesses"

Yes, Rusty's proposal (as I think I summarized above) would do exactly
that: the only address that you'll ever see for a per-CPU variable
will be the canonical one.  The get/set macros can use an alias on
platforms where this is more efficient, but the alias will never be
visible outside the macros.

	--david

  reply	other threads:[~2003-07-10 18:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-07-09 21:20 David Mosberger
2003-07-09 21:56 ` David Mosberger
2003-07-10  1:41 ` Rusty Russell
2003-07-10  9:37   ` Andi Kleen
2003-07-10 17:55   ` David Mosberger
2003-07-10 18:15     ` Linus Torvalds
2003-07-10 18:22       ` David Mosberger [this message]
2003-07-11  2:01     ` Rusty Russell
2003-07-11  2:08       ` David Mosberger

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=16141.44749.105050.260268@napali.hpl.hp.com \
    --to=davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com \
    --cc=ak@suse.de \
    --cc=davidm@hpl.hp.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
    --cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
    /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®