[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170329041829.GA4543@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:18:29 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: kan.liang@...el.com
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bp@...en8.de, acme@...nel.org,
eranian@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 2/2] perf/x86: add sysfs entry to freeze counter on SMI
> + if (x86_pmu.attr_freeze_on_smi == val)
> + return count;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&freeze_on_smi_mutex);
I don't think the mutex is really needed, but if it was it would
need to include the previous check too to be atomic.
> +
> + get_online_cpus();
> +
> + flip_smm_bit(&val);
> + smp_call_function(flip_smm_bit, &val, 1);
> +
> + put_online_cpus();
This is on_each_cpu()
> +
> + x86_pmu.attr_freeze_on_smi = val;
> +
> + mutex_unlock(&freeze_on_smi_mutex);
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists