[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50B8542C.3010109@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:37:32 +0800
From: Shan Wei <shanwei88@...il.com>
To: rostedt@...dmis.org, fweisbec@...il.com, mingo@...hat.com,
Kernel-Maillist <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] trace: use __this_cpu_inc/dec operation instead of __get_cpu_var
ping ......
Shan Wei said, at 2012/11/19 13:21:
> From: Shan Wei <davidshan@...cent.com>
>
> __this_cpu_inc_return() or __this_cpu_dec generates a single instruction,
> which is faster than __get_cpu_var operation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shan Wei <davidshan@...cent.com>
> ---
> kernel/trace/trace.c | 4 ++--
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace.c b/kernel/trace/trace.c
> index 18c0aa8..3795694 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/trace.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace.c
> @@ -1313,7 +1313,7 @@ static void __ftrace_trace_stack(struct ring_buffer *buffer,
> */
> preempt_disable_notrace();
>
> - use_stack = ++__get_cpu_var(ftrace_stack_reserve);
> + use_stack = __this_cpu_inc_return(ftrace_stack_reserve);
> /*
> * We don't need any atomic variables, just a barrier.
> * If an interrupt comes in, we don't care, because it would
> @@ -1367,7 +1367,7 @@ static void __ftrace_trace_stack(struct ring_buffer *buffer,
> out:
> /* Again, don't let gcc optimize things here */
> barrier();
> - __get_cpu_var(ftrace_stack_reserve)--;
> + __this_cpu_dec(ftrace_stack_reserve);
> preempt_enable_notrace();
>
> }
>
--
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