linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] avoid second smp_processor_id() call in __touch_watchdog
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:47:05 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100922164703.GD5302@nowhere> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1285173559.2275.1024.camel@laptop>

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 06:39:19PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 18:27 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > 
> > I'm not sure we want this. This is called by the watchdog internally,
> > from the timer or the cpu bound thread, so we probably should better
> > keep __get_cpu_var() because it checks that we are not in a preemptable
> > section. 
> 
> The smp_processor_id() right at the start already does that.
> 
> That said, I doubt it really matter one way or the other, compilers have
> been known to do CSE for quite a while.


I don't mind personally. We indeed have this smp_processor_id() that
does the check already. But that's also for readability: reviewers
that are used to deal with per cpu datas are also used to see
per_cpu() for remote percpu data access and get_cpu_var() for local
percpu.

Plus some archs may override their __my_cpu_offset implementation
to provide a faster access.


  reply	other threads:[~2010-09-22 16:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-08-13 10:21 fix BUG: using smp_processor_id() in touch_nmi_watchdog and touch_softlockup_watchdog Sergey Senozhatsky
2010-08-16  8:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-08-16 13:34   ` Don Zickus
2010-08-16 13:46     ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-08-16 14:08       ` [PATCH] fix BUG " Sergey Senozhatsky
2010-08-16 14:30         ` Don Zickus
2010-08-17  4:27           ` Yong Zhang
2010-08-17  2:59         ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-08-17  3:16           ` Yong Zhang
2010-08-17  8:39             ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2010-08-17  9:05               ` Yong Zhang
2010-08-17  9:24                 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2010-08-17  9:37                   ` Yong Zhang
2010-08-17 10:28                     ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2010-08-17 12:48                       ` Yong Zhang
2010-08-17 10:39                     ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2010-08-17 12:56                       ` Yong Zhang
2010-08-17 13:13                       ` Don Zickus
2010-08-18  2:48                         ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-08-18 20:01                           ` Andrew Morton
2010-08-19  2:27                             ` Don Zickus
2010-08-20  2:57                             ` Don Zickus
2010-08-20  3:42                               ` Andrew Morton
2010-08-20 12:34                                 ` Don Zickus
2010-08-26 17:17                                 ` acpi_os_stall() and touch_nmi_watchdog() (was Re: [PATCH] fix BUG using smp_processor_id() in touch_nmi_watchdog and touch_softlockup_watchdog) Len Brown
2010-08-20 15:02                               ` [PATCH] fix BUG using smp_processor_id() in touch_nmi_watchdog and touch_softlockup_watchdog Yong Zhang
2010-08-26 10:14                               ` Maxim Levitsky
2010-08-26 14:40                                 ` Don Zickus
2010-08-17  7:56           ` [PATCH] fix BUG using smp_processor_id() in touch_nmi_watchdog and touch_softlockup_watchdog (v2) Sergey Senozhatsky
2010-08-16 14:12       ` fix BUG: using smp_processor_id() in touch_nmi_watchdog and touch_softlockup_watchdog Don Zickus
2010-08-16 14:29         ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-08-16 14:06     ` Yong Zhang
2010-08-18 19:33 ` Andrew Morton
2010-08-18 21:44   ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2010-09-22  9:00   ` [PATCH] avoid second smp_processor_id() call in __touch_watchdog Sergey Senozhatsky
2010-09-22 14:41     ` Don Zickus
2010-09-22 16:27     ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-09-22 16:39       ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-22 16:47         ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
2010-09-24 19:34     ` Don Zickus
2010-09-25 17:43       ` Sergey Senozhatsky

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=20100922164703.GD5302@nowhere \
    --to=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dzickus@redhat.com \
    --cc=gorcunov@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).