[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5332BD50.1070600@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 17:13:12 +0530
From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
CC: tglx@...utronix.de, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, fweisbec@...il.com,
linaro-networking@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/14] hrtimer: use base->index instead of basenum in
switch_hrtimer_base()
On 03/26/2014 04:51 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> In switch_hrtimer_base() we have created a local variable basenum which is set
> to base->index. This variable is used at only one place. It makes code more
> readable if we remove this variable use base->index directly.
>
No, this doesn't look right. Note that the code can re-execute
the assignment to new_base, by jumping to the 'again' label.
See below.
> --- a/kernel/hrtimer.c
> +++ b/kernel/hrtimer.c
> @@ -202,11 +202,10 @@ switch_hrtimer_base(struct hrtimer *timer, struct hrtimer_clock_base *base,
> struct hrtimer_cpu_base *new_cpu_base;
> int this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
> int cpu = get_nohz_timer_target(pinned);
> - int basenum = base->index;
>
> again:
> new_cpu_base = &per_cpu(hrtimer_bases, cpu);
> - new_base = &new_cpu_base->clock_base[basenum];
> + new_base = &new_cpu_base->clock_base[base->index];
>
Further down, timer->base can be altered (and set to NULL too).
So if we jump back to 'again', we'll end up in trouble.
So I think its important to cache the value in basenum and
use it.
> if (base != new_base) {
> /*
>
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
--
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