[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzDWritxv5RiqwcZ1qCKJQKK-Lw6StYFF7qx5YWgiCUTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:26:21 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Michel Dänzer <michel@...nzer.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Random panic in load_balance() with 3.16-rc
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> sched_init() definitely does _not_ allocate a cpumask_var.
Side note: another good rule of thumb for per-cpu variables is:
- if you use __get_cpu_var() without taking the address of it, you're
doing something wrong and stupid.
The whole - and really *only* - point of __get_cpu_var is to get the
address of a a cpu variable. If you want to read the *value* of the
variable, you should use "this_cpu_read()", which can use things like
special instructions or segments to read the percpu area.
I agree that the interface is not all that great, there's historical
baggage there. We would have been better off with
"__this_cpu_ptr(var)" instead of "&__get_cpu_var(var)". But that
"__get_cpu_var()" is the old way of doing things (predating the new
and better "this_cpu_read/write/ops()" stuff), which is why we have
that odd interface with "&__get_cpu_var()".
Linus
--
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