[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140924131302.GC2805@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:13:02 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: kan.liang@...el.com
Cc: eranian@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
paulus@...ba.org, acme@...nel.org, ak@...ux.intel.com,
"Yan, Zheng" <zheng.z.yan@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 02/16] perf, core: introduce pmu context switch
callback
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:08:59AM -0400, kan.liang@...el.com wrote:
> @@ -2446,6 +2499,9 @@ void __perf_event_task_sched_out(struct task_struct *task,
> {
> int ctxn;
>
> + if (__get_cpu_var(perf_sched_cb_usages))
> + perf_pmu_sched_task(task, next, false);
> +
> for_each_task_context_nr(ctxn)
> perf_event_context_sched_out(task, ctxn, next);
>
> @@ -2703,6 +2759,9 @@ void __perf_event_task_sched_in(struct task_struct *prev,
> /* check for system-wide branch_stack events */
> if (atomic_read(&__get_cpu_var(perf_branch_stack_events)))
> perf_branch_stack_sched_in(prev, task);
> +
> + if (__get_cpu_var(perf_sched_cb_usages))
> + perf_pmu_sched_task(prev, task, true);
> }
>
I think the general idea was to get rid of __get_cpu_var() and co,
please consider using __this_cpu_read().
--
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