On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com> wrote:
quoted text
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Nitin Gupta wrote:
>
>> -static void zram_stat_inc(u32 *v)
>> +static void zram_add_stat(struct zram *zram,
>> +                     enum zram_stats_index idx, s64 val)
>>  {
>> -     *v = *v + 1;
>> +     struct zram_stats_cpu *stats;
>> +
>> +     preempt_disable();
>> +     stats = __this_cpu_ptr(zram->stats);
>> +     u64_stats_update_begin(&stats->syncp);
>> +     stats->count[idx] += val;
>> +     u64_stats_update_end(&stats->syncp);
>> +     preempt_enable();
>
> Maybe do
>
> #define zram_add_stat(zram, index, val)
>                this_cpu_add(zram->stats->count[index], val)
>
> instead? It creates an add in a single "atomic" per cpu instruction and
> deals with the fallback scenarios for processors that cannot handle 64
> bit adds.
>
>

Yes, this_cpu_add() seems sufficient. I can't recall why I used u64_stats_*
but if it's not required for atomic access to 64-bit then why was it added to
the mainline in the first place?

Thanks,
Nitin
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/