From: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:26:47 -0700
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:15:50 -0700 (PDT) > David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Look at the definition of DEFINE_SNMP_STAT(). > > Okay, that's confusing. And maybe the comment suggests future work: Indeed. > /* > * FIXME: On x86 and some other CPUs the split into user and softirq parts > * is not needed because addl $1,memory is atomic against interrupts (but > * atomic_inc would be overkill because of the lock cycles). Wants new > * nonlocked_atomic_inc() primitives -AK > */ Yep. And another interesting case are straight loads and stores of per-cpu values on platforms that have a PDA'ish thing like x86_64 and sparc64. The latter has the per-cpu base in a register so in several cases the usual preemption protection simply does not matter and we could optimize them away. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
