Re: [RFC 1/6] Framework

[Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>]

On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 03:14:53PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> >On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 02:46:42PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >
> >>Christoph Lameter wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>+/*
> >>>+ * For use when we know that interrupts are disabled.
> >>>+ */
> >>>+static inline void __mod_zone_page_state(struct zone *zone, enum 
> >>>zone_stat_item item, int delta)
> >>>+{
> >>
> >>Before this goes through, I have a full patch to do similar for the
> >>rest of the statistics, and which will make names consistent with what
> >>you have (shouldn't be a lot of clashes though).
> >
> >
> >I also have a patch to change them all to local_t, greatly simplifying
> >it (e.g. the counters can be done inline then) 
> >
> 
> Cool. That is a patch that should go on top of mine, because most of
> my patch is aimed at moving modifications under interrupts-off sections,

That's obsolete then. With local_t you don't need to turn off interrupts
anymore.

> However I'm still worried about the use of locals tripling the cacheline
> size of a hot-path structure on some 64-bit architectures. Probably we
> should get them to try to move to the atomic64 scheme before using
> local_t here.

I think the right fix for those is to just change the fallback local_t
to disable interrupts again - that should be a better tradeoff and
when they have a better alternative they can implement it in the arch.

(in fact i did a patch for that too, but considered throwing it away
again because I don't have a good way to test it) 

-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/