[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070719095458.DB13914E06@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:54:58 +0200 (CEST)
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To: patches@...-64.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] [14/58] x86_64: Add on_cpu_single
Call a function on a target CPU but do the right thing when
we're already on that CPU. That's the main difference from smp_call_function_single
which does the wrong thing in this case (erroring out)
Another advantage is that it is also defined for the UP case, avoiding
some ifdefs.
I also dropped retry (which never did anything) and wait (because the on
current cpu case will always wait)
Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
---
include/linux/smp.h | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
Index: linux/include/linux/smp.h
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/include/linux/smp.h
+++ linux/include/linux/smp.h
@@ -138,4 +138,26 @@ static inline void smp_send_reschedule(i
void smp_setup_processor_id(void);
+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
+/* Similar to smp_call_function_single, but DTRT when we're already
+ on the right CPU. */
+static inline void on_cpu_single(int cpu, void (*func)(void *), void *info)
+{
+ int me = get_cpu();
+ if (cpu == me) {
+ func(info);
+ put_cpu();
+ } else {
+ put_cpu();
+ /* wait is forced on because the me==cpu case above will always wait */
+ smp_call_function_single(cpu, func, info, 0, 1);
+ }
+}
+#else
+static inline void on_cpu_single(int cpu, void (*func)(void *), void *info)
+{
+ func(info);
+}
+#endif
+
#endif /* __LINUX_SMP_H */
-
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