Regarding atomic_t in per cpu areas: I am uncomfortable especially
because both locked and unlocked RMW write operations could be acting on
values in the same cacheline. I am concerned that the unlocked operation
could have an unpredictable result.
f.e. the following per cpu data structure
struct test {
atomic_t a;
int b;
} onecacheline;
Local cpu does
this_cpu_inc(onecacheline.b);
If this is racing with a remote cpus:
atomic_inc(percpu(&a, cpu))
then we have on x86 a increment operation with locked semantics racing
with an unlocked one on the same cacheline.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
