[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100922144101.GG26290@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 10:41:01 -0400
From: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] avoid second smp_processor_id() call in __touch_watchdog
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:00:12PM +0300, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Per our previous conversation:
>
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Fair enough, although strictly speaking this should be done in a
> > separate and later patch.
> >
>
>
> Avoid double smp_processor_id() call in __touch_watchdog (smp_processor_id()
> itself and later call in __get_cpu_var())
>
> Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Thanks! I'll apply it.
Cheers,
Don
>
> ---
>
> diff --git a/kernel/watchdog.c b/kernel/watchdog.c
> index 7f9c3c5..03d97c5 100644
> --- a/kernel/watchdog.c
> +++ b/kernel/watchdog.c
> @@ -116,8 +116,7 @@ static unsigned long get_sample_period(void)
> static void __touch_watchdog(void)
> {
> int this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
> -
> - __get_cpu_var(watchdog_touch_ts) = get_timestamp(this_cpu);
> + per_cpu(watchdog_touch_ts, this_cpu) = get_timestamp(this_cpu);
> }
>
> void touch_softlockup_watchdog(void)
>
--
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