[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgr-2kxGU=AXFbW=00qOHCA0eb_Ky0Bq9aeBKOegaFxNg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 12:33:56 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] locking/lock_events: Use this_cpu_add() when necessary
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 1:23 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> That's disguisting... I see Linus already applied it, but yuck. That's
> what we have raw_cpu_*() for.
Ahh, I tried to look for that, but there was enough indirection and
confusion that I wasn't sure they were generically available.
And the "raw_cpu_*()" functions are rare enough that I'd never
encountered them enough to really be aware of them. In fact, we seem
to have exactly _one_ user of "raw_cpu_add()" in the whole kernel, and
a handful of "raw_cpu_inc()".
But ack on your patch, and a heartfelt "yeah, that's the right thing". Thanks,
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists