From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 18:59:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 18:59:11 -0500 Received: from [202.135.142.194] ([202.135.142.194]:21521 "EHLO wagner.rustcorp.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 18:58:55 -0500 From: Rusty Russell To: Andi Kleen Cc: davidm@hpl.hp.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rth@twiddle.net Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.5.1-pre5: per-cpu areas In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 18 Mar 2002 08:35:11 BST." <20020318083511.A19810@wotan.suse.de> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:02:09 +1100 Message-Id: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In message <20020318083511.A19810@wotan.suse.de> you write: > On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 06:17:32PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 10:13:09 +0100 > > Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 03:07:27PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > > They must return an lvalue, otherwise they're useless for 50% of cases > > > > (ie. assignment). x86_64 can still use its own mechanism for > > > > arch-specific per-cpu data, of course. > > > > > > Assignment should use an own macro (set_this_cpu()) or use per_cpu(). > > > > So, we'd have "get_this_cpu(x)" and "set_this_cpu(x, y)". So far, so good. > > > > struct myinfo > > { > > int x; > > int y; > > }; > > > > static struct myinfo mystuff __per_cpu_data; > > > > Now how do we set mystuff.x on this CPU? > > set_this_cpu(mystuff.x, y) could be eventually supported properly, it just > needs compiler work (and before that can use address calculation & reference) I think the effort would be better spent on teaching the compiler about these special variables, and how to do efficient assignments on them. Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.