[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100505175815.GE6320@nowhere>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 19:58:17 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] x86,perf: P4 PMU -- protect sensible procedures
from preemption
On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 09:42:34PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 06:57:34PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> ...
> > > @@ -741,7 +743,7 @@ static int p4_pmu_schedule_events(struct
> > > {
> > > unsigned long used_mask[BITS_TO_LONGS(X86_PMC_IDX_MAX)];
> > > unsigned long escr_mask[BITS_TO_LONGS(ARCH_P4_TOTAL_ESCR)];
> > > - int cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
> > > + int cpu = get_cpu();
> > > struct hw_perf_event *hwc;
> > > struct p4_event_bind *bind;
> > > unsigned int i, thread, num;
> > > @@ -777,6 +779,7 @@ reserve:
> > > }
> > >
> > > done:
> > > + put_cpu();
> > > return num ? -ENOSPC : 0;
> > > }
> >
> > That's no big deal. But I think the schedule_events() is called on
> > pmu::enable() time, when preemption is already disabled.
> >
>
> We'll be on a safe side using get/put_cpu here (ie in case
> if something get changed one day).
>
> -- Cyrill
Sure, no problem with that.
--
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