[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1109200952460.8056@router.home>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 09:54:10 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5] printk: Have wake_up_klogd() use
__this_cpu_write()
On Mon, 19 Sep 2011, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Note, just because something is always in a location that preemption is
> disabled, does not mean it should use the __this_cpu*() variants.
Why not? If preemption is disabled then the process cannot be migrated to
another processor. And thus doing the address calculations and operations
on variables step by step is okay.
> Because if things change, it may become a problem later on.
What things may change? Someone calls the function with preemption
enabled?
--
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