From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH -v5][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 22:28:42 +0100 Message-ID: <20090107212842.GD4597@elte.hu> References: <1231279660.11687.121.camel@twins> <1231281801.11687.125.camel@twins> <1231283778.11687.136.camel@twins> <1231329783.11687.287.camel@twins> <1231347442.11687.344.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Steven Rostedt , Peter Zijlstra , paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Gregory Haskins , Matthew Wilcox , Andi Kleen , Chris Mason , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel , linux-btrfs , Thomas Gleixner , Nick Piggin , Peter Morreale , Sven Dietrich To: Linus Torvalds Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-ID: * Linus Torvalds wrote: > /* > * Even if the access succeeded (likely case), > * the cpu field may no longer be valid. FIXME: > * this needs to validate that we can do a > * get_cpu() and that we have the percpu area. s/get_cpu/cpu_rq ? > */ > if (cpu >= NR_CPUS) > break; > > if (!cpu_online(cpu)) > break; Regarding the FIXME, this should be safe already - at least on x86 we set up all the possible-cpus-mask per CPU areas during bootup. So any CPU that is online, will have a percpu area. (even in the most racy case) Ingo