[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1281968948.1926.1467.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:29:08 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: fix BUG: using smp_processor_id() in touch_nmi_watchdog and
touch_softlockup_watchdog
On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 10:12 -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 03:46:58PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > I don't see a problem with the patch, but my low level understanding of
> > > the __get_cpu_var vs. per_cpu isn't very strong.
> >
> > __get_cpu_var() gets you the value on the current cpu, per_cpu() takes a
> > cpu argument.
>
> Well I know that much. :-) It seems that __get_cpu_var depends on
> preemption being disabled whereas per_cpu does not? Though for some
> reason I thought __get_cpu_var would be more atomic when it grabbed the
> current cpu such that you wouldn't need to disable preemption. Guess not.
Indeed, it can't be implemented atomically on all smp systems, hence its
really nothing other than a 'convenient' short for per_cpu(foo,
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