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
next prev parent 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®