[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100407112707.GA5143@nowhere>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 13:27:12 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, acme@...hat.com,
paulus@...ba.org, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 3/3] sched: Use local_irq_save_nmi() in cpu_clock()
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 03:28:10PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Since we can call cpu_clock() from NMI context fix up the IRQ
> disabling to conform to the new rules.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> ---
> kernel/sched_clock.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched_clock.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched_clock.c
> +++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched_clock.c
> @@ -241,9 +241,9 @@ unsigned long long cpu_clock(int cpu)
> unsigned long long clock;
> unsigned long flags;
>
> - local_irq_save(flags);
> + local_irq_save_nmi(flags);
> clock = sched_clock_cpu(cpu);
> - local_irq_restore(flags);
> + local_irq_restore_nmi(flags);
>
> return clock;
> }
That seem to add a small overhead in various places.
Do we want to make local_irq_save_nmi == local_irq_save
for archs that have native nmi?
Or cpu_clock_nmi()?
--
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