Re: [PATCH] percpu: improve generic percpu modify-return implementation

2016-09-23 Thread Nicholas Piggin
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 12:07:49 -0400 Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 02:35:00PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > > Well thank you, how about you? > > Heh, can't complain. Hope to see you around sometime. It's been > forever. Yeah, it has been. Hopefully I'll see you arou

Re: [PATCH] percpu: improve generic percpu modify-return implementation

2016-09-22 Thread Tejun Heo
Hello, On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 02:35:00PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > Well thank you, how about you? Heh, can't complain. Hope to see you around sometime. It's been forever. > Trying a new mail client, sorry. It *seems* to be working now, how's > this? Hmm... Still encoded. > From d0cb90

Re: [PATCH] percpu: improve generic percpu modify-return implementation

2016-09-21 Thread Nicholas Piggin
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 10:23:43 -0400 Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Nick. > > How have you been? :) Hey Tejun, Well thank you, how about you? > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:57:11PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 18:51:37 +1000 > > Nicholas Piggin wrote: > > > > > Some archi

Re: [PATCH] percpu: improve generic percpu modify-return implementation

2016-09-21 Thread Nicholas Piggin
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:16:25 -0500 (CDT) Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > Hello, Nick. > > > > How have you been? :) > > > > He is baack. Are we getting SL!B? ;-) > Hey Christoph. Sure, why not.

Re: [PATCH] percpu: improve generic percpu modify-return implementation

2016-09-21 Thread Christoph Lameter
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Nick. > > How have you been? :) > He is baack. Are we getting SL!B? ;-)

Re: [PATCH] percpu: improve generic percpu modify-return implementation

2016-09-21 Thread Tejun Heo
Hello, Nick. How have you been? :) On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:57:11PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 18:51:37 +1000 > Nicholas Piggin wrote: > > > Some architectures require an additional load to find the address of > > percpu pointers. In some implemenatations, the C alias

Re: [PATCH] percpu: improve generic percpu modify-return implementation

2016-09-21 Thread Nicholas Piggin
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 18:51:37 +1000 Nicholas Piggin wrote: > Some architectures require an additional load to find the address of > percpu pointers. In some implemenatations, the C aliasing rules do not > allow the result of that load to be kept over the store that modifies > the percpu variable,

Re: [PATCH] percpu: improve generic percpu modify-return implementation

2016-09-21 Thread kbuild test robot
Hi Nicholas, [auto build test ERROR on asm-generic/master] [also build test ERROR on v4.8-rc7 next-20160920] [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system] [Suggest to use git(>=2.9.0) format-patch --base= (or --base=auto for convenience) to re

Re: [PATCH] percpu: improve generic percpu modify-return implementation

2016-09-21 Thread kbuild test robot
Hi Nicholas, [auto build test WARNING on asm-generic/master] [also build test WARNING on v4.8-rc7 next-20160920] [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system] [Suggest to use git(>=2.9.0) format-patch --base= (or --base=auto for convenience) t

Re: [PATCH] percpu: improve generic percpu modify-return implementation

2016-09-21 Thread kbuild test robot
Hi Nicholas, [auto build test ERROR on asm-generic/master] [also build test ERROR on v4.8-rc7 next-20160920] [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system] [Suggest to use git(>=2.9.0) format-patch --base= (or --base=auto for convenience) to re

[PATCH] percpu: improve generic percpu modify-return implementation

2016-09-21 Thread Nicholas Piggin
Some architectures require an additional load to find the address of percpu pointers. In some implemenatations, the C aliasing rules do not allow the result of that load to be kept over the store that modifies the percpu variable, which causes additional loads. Work around this by finding the poin