[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181003075446.GA3183@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 09:54:46 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] locking/lockdep: Make class->ops a percpu counter
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 04:19:19PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > +DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long [MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS], lock_class_ops);
>
> > @@ -179,9 +181,30 @@ DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct lockdep_stats, lockdep_stats);
> > } \
> > __total; \
> > })
> > +
> > +static inline void debug_class_ops_inc(struct lock_class *class)
> > +{
> > + int idx;
> > +
> > + idx = class - lock_classes;
> > + __this_cpu_inc(lock_class_ops[idx]);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline unsigned long debug_class_ops_read(struct lock_class *class)
> > +{
> > + int idx, cpu;
> > + unsigned long ops = 0;
> > +
> > + idx = class - lock_classes;
> > + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
> > + ops += per_cpu(lock_class_ops[idx], cpu);
> > + return ops;
> > +}
>
> Would it make sense to stick that in struct lockdep_stats ?
>
> A little something like:
>
> struct lockdep_stats {
> /* ... */
> int lock_class_ops[MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS];
> };
Did you shrink the 'long' to 'int' intentionally?
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists