[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87y2bu2hqp.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2021 08:58:54 +0200
From: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH next v1 1/2] dump_stack: move cpu lock to printk.c
On 2021-06-01, Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org> wrote:
> On (21/05/31 18:20), John Ogness wrote:
>> +void printk_cpu_lock(unsigned int *cpu_store, unsigned long *flags)
>> +{
>> + unsigned int cpu;
>> +
>> + for (;;) {
>> + cpu = get_cpu();
>> +
>> + *cpu_store = atomic_read(&printk_cpulock_owner);
>> +
>> + if (*cpu_store == -1) {
>> + local_irq_save(*flags);
>
> Is there any particular reason this does
>
> preempt_disable();
> cpu = smp_processor_id();
> local_irq_safe();
>
> instead of
>
> local_irq_safe();
> cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
>
> ?
If the lock is owned by another CPU, there is no need to disable
interrupts for this CPU. (The local_irq_save() is conditional.)
John Ogness
Powered by blists - more mailing lists