From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753593AbaIXNNJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:13:09 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:55433 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751182AbaIXNNH (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:13:07 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:13:02 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: kan.liang@intel.com Cc: eranian@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, paulus@samba.org, acme@kernel.org, ak@linux.intel.com, "Yan, Zheng" Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 02/16] perf, core: introduce pmu context switch callback Message-ID: <20140924131302.GC2805@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1410358153-421-1-git-send-email-kan.liang@intel.com> <1410358153-421-3-git-send-email-kan.liang@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1410358153-421-3-git-send-email-kan.liang@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22.1 (2013-10-16) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:08:59AM -0400, kan.liang@intel.com wrote: > @@ -2446,6 +2499,9 @@ void __perf_event_task_sched_out(struct task_struct *task, > { > int ctxn; > > + if (__get_cpu_var(perf_sched_cb_usages)) > + perf_pmu_sched_task(task, next, false); > + > for_each_task_context_nr(ctxn) > perf_event_context_sched_out(task, ctxn, next); > > @@ -2703,6 +2759,9 @@ void __perf_event_task_sched_in(struct task_struct *prev, > /* check for system-wide branch_stack events */ > if (atomic_read(&__get_cpu_var(perf_branch_stack_events))) > perf_branch_stack_sched_in(prev, task); > + > + if (__get_cpu_var(perf_sched_cb_usages)) > + perf_pmu_sched_task(prev, task, true); > } > I think the general idea was to get rid of __get_cpu_var() and co, please consider using __this_cpu_read().