On Thursday 29 November 2007 10:36:06 Christoph Lameter wrote:
> The code becomes much simpler if gs would point to the beginning of the
> per cpu area and if the __per_cpu_offset[i] would do the same. No weird
> __per_cpu_start offsetting anymore.
It is a little weird, but it gave flexibility for most archs.
ISTR I had issues relocating the percpu area to 0, but I look forward to your
code!
> The generic write/readpercpu functionality introduced by the cpu_alloc
> patchset works best with offsets relative to an arch dependent
> register. All per cpu data (pda, percpu and allocpercpu) is handles as an
> offset relative to the start of the per cpu data.
Hmm, did someone cc me on the patchset and I missed it?
> If the current offset by __per_cpu_start is kept then a per cpu allocator
> may have to dish out addresses that go beyond __per_cpu_end.
Of course; you just need congruence in your allocation across CPUs. It's
possible, but no worse than the requirements on other schemes where you can
reach a variable with a single addition for the CPU.
> I think dealing with a per cpu variable as if it would be an offset
> relative to a base is natural for the typical addressing of cpus based on
> an offset relative to some register.
We've had practical problems getting the compiler to eke out the potential
benefit. That's why we settled for an offset between where the compiler
expected and where the variable actually was.
Cheers,
Rusty.
-
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]
