From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752984Ab3LQJ03 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 17 Dec 2013 04:26:29 -0500
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:36601 "EHLO
	merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750866Ab3LQJ01 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 17 Dec 2013 04:26:27 -0500
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:26:11 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>, H Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Linux-X86 <x86@kernel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Fix ebizzy performance regression due to X86 TLB
 range flush v2
Message-ID: <20131217092611.GD21999@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1386964870-6690-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de>
 <CA+55aFyNAigQqBk07xLpf0nkhZ_x-QkBYG8otRzsqg_8A2eg-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20131215155539.GM11295@suse.de>
 <20131216102439.GA21624@gmail.com>
 <20131216125923.GS11295@suse.de>
 <20131216134449.GA3034@gmail.com>
 <20131217092124.GV11295@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20131217092124.GV11295@suse.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 09:21:25AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
>  	if (sd) {
>  		id = cpumask_first(sched_domain_span(sd));
>  		size = cpumask_weight(sched_domain_span(sd));
> -		sd = sd->parent; /* sd_busy */
> +		busy_sd = sd->parent; /* sd_busy */
>  	}
> -	rcu_assign_pointer(per_cpu(sd_busy, cpu), sd);
> +	rcu_assign_pointer(per_cpu(sd_busy, cpu), busy_sd);

Argh, so much for paying attention :/

Thanks!