[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100313001508.226284440@kvm.kroah.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:12:13 -0800
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org
Cc: stable-review@...nel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: [patch 035/123] perf_event: Fix preempt warning in perf_clock()
2.6.33-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
-----------------
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
commit 24691ea964cc0123e386b661e03a86a481c6ee79 upstream.
A recent commit introduced a preemption warning for
perf_clock(), use raw_smp_processor_id() to avoid this, it
really doesn't matter which cpu we use here.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
LKML-Reference: <1267198583.22519.684.camel@...top>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
---
kernel/perf_event.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/kernel/perf_event.c
+++ b/kernel/perf_event.c
@@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ static void perf_unpin_context(struct pe
static inline u64 perf_clock(void)
{
- return cpu_clock(smp_processor_id());
+ return cpu_clock(raw_smp_processor_id());
}
/*
--
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