Re: [this_cpu_xx 01/11] Introduce this_cpu_ptr() and generic this_cpu_*operations

From: Tejun Heo
Date: Wed Jun 17 2009 - 21:09:39 EST


Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Please note that this can also happen between addition or other
>> modifying ops and cause incorrect result.
> Per cpu operations are only safe for the current processor. One issue
> there may be that the store after rescheduling may not occur to the
> current processors per cpu instance but the prior cpu. At that point
> another thread may be running on the prior cpu and be disturbed like you
> point out. So it needs a preempt disable there too.

Yeap, to summarize, the problem is that the address determination and
the actual memory write aren't atomic with respect to preeamption.

>> Also, these macros depricate percpu_OP() macros, right?
> They are different. percpu_OP() macros require a percpu variable name
> to be passed.
> this_cpu_* macros require a reference to a variable in a
> structure allocated with the new per cpu allocator.
> It is possible to simply pass the full variable name of a percpu variable
> to this_cpu_* macros. See the patch of the vm statistics handling.
> It uses
> per_cpu_var(per_cpu_name_without_prefix)
> to generate the full name.

Yeap, I guess it's about time to ressurect Rusty's drop-per_cpu_
prefix patch; then, we can truly handle static and dynamic variables
in the same manner.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at