Re: [PATCH 1/2] Define new percpu interface for shared data -- version 3

On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 02:13:24PM -0700, Yu, Fenghua wrote:
> Yes, in theory, sharing shared percpu data with local percpu data in one
> cache line can cause cache line contention between remote and local
> access.

What's "shared percpu data" ?  It sounds to me like a contradiction in
terms.  Isn't percpu data supposed to only be accessed by the CPU which
owns it to prevent cache line bouncing?  In which case, what's the point
of sharing that data with other CPUs?  Surely "shared percpu data" is
just the same as normal data?

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: [PATCH 1/2] Define new percpu interface for shared data -- version 3
    • From: "Yu, Fenghua" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: [PATCH 1/2] Define new percpu interface for shared data -- version 3
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • RE: [PATCH 1/2] Define new percpu interface for shared data -- version 3
    • From: "Yu, Fenghua" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Need suspend-to-ram maintainer Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
• Next by Date: Re: [patch] x86_64: fix sched_clock()
• Previous by thread: RE: [PATCH 1/2] Define new percpu interface for shared data -- version 3
• Next by thread: RE: [PATCH 1/2] Define new percpu interface for shared data -- version 3
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]