[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060828152428.GE20394@frankl.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 08:24:28 -0700
From: Stephane Eranian <eranian@....hp.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/18] 2.6.17.9 perfmon2 patch for review: PMU interruption support
Andrew,
I am slowly going through your excellent feedback and I am making
the changes suggested. I will reply to all your questions.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 03:40:57PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 01:05:58 -0700
> Stephane Eranian <eranian@...nkl.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
> > ...
> >
> > +irqreturn_t pfm_interrupt_handler(int irq, void *arg, struct pt_regs *regs)
> > +{
> > + u64 start_cycles, total_cycles;
> > +
> > + get_cpu();
> > +
> > + start_cycles = pfm_arch_get_itc();
> > +
> > + __pfm_interrupt_handler(regs);
> > +
> > + total_cycles = pfm_arch_get_itc();
> > +
> > + __get_cpu_var(pfm_stats).pfm_ovfl_intr_cycles += total_cycles - start_cycles;
> > +
> > + put_cpu_no_resched();
> > + return IRQ_HANDLED;
> > +}
>
> If this code is only ever called from interrupt context then I suspect the
> get_cpu() is not needed. __get_cpu_var() requires that preemption be
> disabled (so we cannot wander over to a different CPU midway) but IRQ
> code doesn't get preempted.
Yes, this function is ONLY called on PMU interrupt. I will remove the useless
get_cpu()/put_cpu() code then.
Thanks.
--
-Stephane
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists