From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Chris Wedgwood <cw@f00f.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] __get_cpu_var should use __smp_processor_id() not smp_processor_id()
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:40:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050117144016.GC10341@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050117073809.GA3654@taniwha.stupidest.org>
* Chris Wedgwood <cw@f00f.org> wrote:
> It seems logical that __get_cpu_var should use __smp_processor_id()
> rather than smp_processor_id(). Noticed when __get_cpu_var was making
> lots of noise with CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT=y
no ... normally you should only use __get_cpu_var() if you know that you
are in a non-preempt case. It's a __ internal function for a reason.
Where did it trigger?
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-01-17 14:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 87+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-01-17 5:50 Horrible regression with -CURRENT from "Don't busy-lock-loop in preemptable spinlocks" patch Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-17 7:09 ` Andrew Morton
2005-01-17 7:33 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-17 7:50 ` Paul Mackerras
2005-01-17 8:00 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-17 14:33 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-18 1:47 ` Darren Williams
2005-01-18 1:47 ` Darren Williams
2005-01-18 4:28 ` Darren Williams
2005-01-18 4:28 ` Darren Williams
2005-01-18 7:08 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-18 7:08 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-19 0:14 ` Peter Chubb
2005-01-19 0:14 ` Peter Chubb
2005-01-19 8:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-19 8:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-19 9:18 ` Peter Chubb
2005-01-19 9:18 ` Peter Chubb
2005-01-19 9:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-19 9:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-19 21:43 ` Paul Mackerras
2005-01-19 21:43 ` Paul Mackerras
2005-01-20 2:34 ` [PATCH RFC] 'spinlock/rwlock fixes' V3 [1/1] Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-20 2:34 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-20 3:01 ` Andrew Morton
2005-01-20 3:01 ` Andrew Morton
2005-01-20 3:18 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-20 3:18 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-20 3:33 ` Andrew Morton
2005-01-20 3:33 ` Andrew Morton
2005-01-20 8:59 ` Peter Chubb
2005-01-20 8:59 ` Peter Chubb
2005-01-20 13:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 13:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 15:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 15:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:08 ` [patch 1/3] spinlock fix #1, *_can_lock() primitives Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:08 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:11 ` [patch 2/3] spinlock fix #2: generalize [spin|rw]lock yielding Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:12 ` [patch 3/3] spinlock fix #3: type-checking spinlock primitives, x86 Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:12 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:14 ` [patch] stricter type-checking rwlock " Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:16 ` [patch] minor spinlock cleanups Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:31 ` [patch 1/3] spinlock fix #1, *_can_lock() primitives Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 17:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 17:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 17:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 17:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 18:22 ` [patch, BK-curr] nonintrusive spin-polling loop in kernel/spinlock.c Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 18:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 18:25 ` [patch, BK-curr] rename 'lock' to 'slock' in asm-i386/spinlock.h Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 18:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 23:45 ` [patch, BK-curr] nonintrusive spin-polling loop in kernel/spinlock.c Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 23:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:44 ` [patch 1/3] spinlock fix #1, *_can_lock() primitives Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:44 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:05 ` [PATCH RFC] 'spinlock/rwlock fixes' V3 [1/1] Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 17:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 17:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 17:38 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 17:38 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 5:49 ` Horrible regression with -CURRENT from "Don't busy-lock-loop in preemptable spinlocks" patch Grant Grundler
2005-01-20 5:49 ` Grant Grundler
2005-01-17 7:38 ` [PATCH] __get_cpu_var should use __smp_processor_id() not smp_processor_id() Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-17 14:40 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2005-01-17 18:53 ` Chris Wedgwood
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20050117144016.GC10341@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=cw@f00f.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.