[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1347460719.15764.42.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 16:38:39 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"Yan, Zheng" <zheng.z.yan@...el.com>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] hrtimer: add hrtimer_init_cpu()
On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 16:33 +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>
> If I do:
> for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> cpuctx = per_cpu_ptr(pmu->pmu_cpu_context, cpu);
> hr = &cpuctx->hrtimer;
> hrtimer_init(hr)
> }
> I don't understand why I would have to refer to per-cpu data
> (hrtimer_bases) from
> a CPU that is not equal to "cpu" here. Unless you're telling me it's
> read-only data.
No its not read only, but it is unused until you do *hrtimer_start*(),
which will test and fix.
> But still if it's per-cpu why not initialize with the correct CPU from
> the start?
To keep the interface simpler I guess. There's no great harm in your
proposal, but it is strictly speaking superfluous. I'm not sure the max
one time avoidance of a base swizzle is worth the extra interface, I'll
leave that up to Thomas.
Also, what Eric said ;-)
--
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