Re: [RFC] dynticks: dynticks_idle is only modified locally use this_cpu ops
From: Christoph Lameter
Date: Tue Sep 02 2014 - 19:23:05 EST
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Yep, these two have been on my "when I am feeling insanely gutsy" list
> for quite some time.
> But I have to ask... On x86, is a pair of mfence instructions really
> cheaper than an atomic increment?
Not sure why you would need an mfence instruction?
> > If the first patch I send gets merged then a lot of other this_cpu related
> > optimizations become possible regardless of the ones in the RFC.
> Yep, I am queuing that one.
> But could you please do future patches against the rcu/dev branch of
> I had to hand-apply due to conflicts. Please see below for my version,
> and please check to make sure that I didn't mess something up in the
Looks ok. Will use the correct tree next time.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/