[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2015 11:43:25 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vikas.shivappa@...el.com,
x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...nel.org, tj@...nel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, matt.fleming@...el.com, will.auld@...el.com,
kanaka.d.juvva@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] x86/intel_rdt: Implement scheduling support for
Intel RDT
On Thu, 4 Jun 2015, Vikas Shivappa wrote:
> +static inline void intel_rdt_sched_in(void)
> +{
> + if (static_key_false(&rdt_enable_key))
> + __intel_rdt_sched_in();
So if the enable_key is FALSE we call the RDT stuff? I might be
missing something important, but this does not make any sense and I
have to ask how that whole stuff has been tested.
> /*
> * Protects cache_cgroups and cqm_rmid_free_lru and cqm_rmid_limbo_lru.
> @@ -403,8 +384,8 @@ static void __intel_cqm_event_count(void *info);
> static u32 intel_cqm_xchg_rmid(struct perf_event *group, u32 rmid)
> {
> struct perf_event *event;
> - struct list_head *head = &group->hw.cqm_group_entry;
> u32 old_rmid = group->hw.cqm_rmid;
> + struct list_head *head = &group->hw.cqm_group_entry;
And this change is necessary because?
Thanks,
tglx
--
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