[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100615230541.5db5078e@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:05:41 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] avoid using smp_processor_id() in preemptible code
(nr_iowait_cpu)
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:13:03 +0300
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com> wrote:
>
> I've changed struct tick_sched to match passed *ts and cpu. Also
> changed "&per_cpu(tick_cpu_sched, cpu)" call to "struct tick_sched
> *tick_get_tick_sched(int cpu)" which we already have.
>
> But I don't really like this part:
> struct tick_sched *tick_get_tick_sched(int cpu)
> {
> struct tick_sched *ts = &per_cpu(tick_cpu_sched, cpu);
> ts->cpu = cpu;
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> return ts;
> }
>
> Please kindly review.
can we do this bit once, when the ts structure gets initialized?
it's not like the cpu value will ever change...
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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