On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Andi Kleen wrote:
> It would be nicer to use some variant of local_t - then you could do that
> without turning off interrupts (which some CPUs like P4 don't like)
>
> There currently is not 1 byte local_t but it could be added.
>
> Mind you it would only make sense when most of the calls are not already
> with interrupts disabled.
We have discussed this before and there is a comment in the patch:
+ *
+ * Some processors have inc/dec instructions that are atomic vs an interrupt.
+ * However, the code must first determine the differential location in a zone
+ * based on the processor number and then inc/dec the counter. There is no
+ * guarantee without disabling preemption that the processor will not change
+ * in between and therefore the atomicity vs. interrupt cannot be exploited
+ * in a useful way here.
+ */
+void __inc_zone_page_state(struct page *page, enum zone_stat_item item)
+{
+ struct zone *zone = page_zone(page);
+ s8 *p = diff_pointer(zone, item);
+
+ (*p)++;
+
+ if (unlikely(*p > STAT_THRESHOLD)) {
+ zone_page_state_add(*p, zone, item);
+ *p = 0;
+ }
+}
AFAIK the restrictions on local_t use are such that is barely usable.
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
