Rusty Russell writes:
> In message <20030217213221.3103.qmail@eklektix.com> you write:
> > I had a quick question: is the inability to declare per-CPU variables in
> > modules going to be permanent?
>
> <sigh>
>
> I'd really like to fix it, but that's *hard*.
>
> <think think think, ask Paulus>
>
> There might be a neater way, and there's definitely a more
> space-efficient way, but this is a start (the wastage is small as long
> as there are only a few per-cpu vars, as there are at the moment).
>
> Rusty.
> --
> Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.
>
> Name: per-cpu support inside modules
> Author: Rusty Russell
> Status: Tested on 2.5.62
>
> D: This adds percpu support for modules. A module cannot have more
> D: percpu data than the base kernel does (on my kernel 5636 bytes).
This limitation is quite horrible.
Does the implementation have to be perfect? The per_cpu API can easily
be simulated using good old NR_CPUS arrays:
#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE >= KERNEL_VERSION(2,5,8) && !defined(MODULE)
#include <linux/percpu.h> /* why doesn't this work for modules? */
#else
/* Simulate per_cpu() for older kernels or modular builds. */
#define DEFINE_PER_CPU(type, name) \
__typeof__(type) name[NR_CPUS] __cacheline_aligned
#define per_cpu(var, cpu) ((var)[(cpu)])
#endif
Yes it wastes space. Big deal. Rather that than arbitrary limitations.
/Mikael
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 23 2003 - 22:00:22 EST