On Tue, Feb 19 2008, Mike Travis wrote:
> Paul Jackson wrote:
> > Jens wrote:
> >> My main worry with the current code is the ->lock in the per-cpu
> >> completion structure.
> >
> > Drive-by-comment here: Does the patch posted later this same day by Mike
> > Travis:
> >
> > [PATCH 0/2] percpu: Optimize percpu accesses v3
> >
> > help with this lock issue any? (I have no real clue here -- just connecting
> > up the pretty colored dots ;).
> >
>
> I'm not sure of the context here but a big motivation for doing the
> zero-based per_cpu variables was to optimize access to the local
> per cpu variables to one instruction, reducing the need for locks.
I'm afraid the two things aren't related, although faster access to
per-cpu is of course a benefit for this as well. My expressed concern
was the:
spin_lock(&bc->lock);
was_empty = list_empty(&bc->list);
list_add_tail(&req->donelist, &bc->list);
spin_unlock(&bc->lock);
where 'bc' may be per-cpu data of another CPU
--
Jens Axboe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
