Re: [PATCH] lib/percpu_counter.c: disable local irq when updatingpercpu couter

From: Ming Lei
Date: Tue Jan 07 2014 - 22:30:07 EST

Hi Andrew,

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I am wondering if the above patch is more efficient, because:
>> - raw_local_irq_save()/raw_local_irq_restore() should be cheaper
>> than preempt_enable() in theory
> Don't think so - local_irq_disable() requires quite some internal
> synchronization in the CPU and is expensive. preempt_disable() is just

Yes, it might be a little expensive on some CPUs, but should be
arch-dependent(CPU inside things are involved)

> an add+barrier, minus the add if the kernel is non-preemptable.

IMO, generally, from software view, local_irq_save() only save the
CPU's interrupt mask to the local variable 'flag', and sets irq mask
to register, considered local variable can be thought to be in cache,
so I think it might be cheaper than preempt_enable() because
preempt counter may not be in cache.

Also this_cpu_add() won't work in batch path(slow path), we still
need to avoid interrupt coming between reading the percpu counter
and resetting it, otherwise counts might be lost too, :-)

Ming Lei
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