[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1403261830400.21095@ionos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 18:31:18 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
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 Wed, 26 Mar 2014, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> 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.
That's irrelevant. base is not changing.
--
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