From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761158Ab3JPRj5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:39:57 -0400 Received: from cdptpa-outbound-snat.email.rr.com ([107.14.166.225]:61006 "EHLO cdptpa-oedge-vip.email.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754061Ab3JPRj4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:39:56 -0400 Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:39:54 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Christoph Lameter , Tejun Heo , akpm@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] percpu: Add preemption checks to __this_cpu ops Message-ID: <20131016133954.1e2d8d3b@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20131016171153.GC10651@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20131015174722.615394057@linux.com> <20131015174747.813545438@linux.com> <20131016084920.GT10651@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <00000141c1d04300-e935e477-6669-4388-8109-c77064ee27e7-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20131016153603.GZ10651@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <00000141c1fae3ba-6b52fea1-74f9-42f7-b1db-70dda847e7f9-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20131016162537.GB10651@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20131016125238.5f970fd5@gandalf.local.home> <20131016171153.GC10651@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.2 (GTK+ 2.24.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RR-Connecting-IP: 107.14.168.130:25 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 19:11:53 +0200 Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Anyway; I don't think the spinlock pattern matches too good and I don't > mind the proposed: > > this_cpu_$op (disables IRQs itself) > __this_cpu_$op (with preemption check) > raw_cpu_$op (without preemption check) > That sounds fine too. -- Steve