Re: [cpuops cmpxchg V2 3/5] irq_work: Use per cpu atomics insteadof regular atomics

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 17:32 +0100, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On 12/14/2010 05:28 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > The irq work queue is a per cpu object and it is sufficient for
> > synchronization if per cpu atomics are used. Doing so simplifies
> > the code and reduces the overhead of the code.
> > 
> > Before:
> > 
> > christoph@xxxxxxxxx$ size kernel/irq_work.o
> >    text	   data	    bss	    dec	    hex	filename
> >     451	      8	      1	    460	    1cc	kernel/irq_work.o
> > 
> > After:
> > 
> > christoph@xxxxxxxxx$ size kernel/irq_work.o 
> >    text	   data	    bss	    dec	    hex	filename
> >     438	      8	      1	    447	    1bf	kernel/irq_work.o
> > 
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Peter, can you please ack this one?

I guess so, I don't much like the bare preempt_disable/enable there, and
I'm wondering, aren't %fs prefixed insn slower than regular insn? Does
it really pay to avoid this one address computation if there's multiple
users in a function. %fs prefixes do take another byte, so it will also
result in larger code at some point.
--
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/