From: Chris Wedgwood <cw@f00f.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Subject: [PATCH] __get_cpu_var should use __smp_processor_id() not smp_processor_id()
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:38:09 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050117073809.GA3654@taniwha.stupidest.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050117055044.GA3514@taniwha.stupidest.org>
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 09:50:44PM -0800, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> Note, even with this removed I'm still seeing a few (many actually)
> "BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000001] code: xxx"
> messages which I've not seen before --- that might be unrelated but
> I do see *many* such messages so I'm sure I would have noticed this
> before or it would have broken something earlier.
Actually, it is unrelated. Proposed fix:
---
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
Signed-off-by: Chris Wedgwood <cw@f00f.org>
===== include/asm-generic/percpu.h 1.10 vs edited =====
--- 1.10/include/asm-generic/percpu.h 2004-01-18 22:28:34 -08:00
+++ edited/include/asm-generic/percpu.h 2005-01-16 22:32:07 -08:00
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ extern unsigned long __per_cpu_offset[NR
/* var is in discarded region: offset to particular copy we want */
#define per_cpu(var, cpu) (*RELOC_HIDE(&per_cpu__##var, __per_cpu_offset[cpu]))
-#define __get_cpu_var(var) per_cpu(var, smp_processor_id())
+#define __get_cpu_var(var) per_cpu(var, __smp_processor_id())
/* A macro to avoid #include hell... */
#define percpu_modcopy(pcpudst, src, size) \
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-01-17 7:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ 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 4:28 ` Darren Williams
2005-01-18 7:08 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-19 0:14 ` Peter Chubb
2005-01-19 8:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-19 9:18 ` Peter Chubb
2005-01-19 9:20 ` Ingo Molnar
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 3:01 ` Andrew Morton
2005-01-20 3:18 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-20 3:33 ` Andrew Morton
2005-01-20 8:59 ` Peter Chubb
2005-01-20 13:04 ` Ingo Molnar
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 16:11 ` [patch 2/3] spinlock fix #2: generalize [spin|rw]lock yielding Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:12 ` [patch 3/3] spinlock fix #3: type-checking spinlock primitives, x86 Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:14 ` [patch] stricter type-checking rwlock " Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:16 ` [patch] minor spinlock cleanups Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:31 ` [patch 1/3] spinlock fix #1, *_can_lock() primitives Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 17:48 ` Linus Torvalds
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 18:25 ` [patch, BK-curr] rename 'lock' to 'slock' in asm-i386/spinlock.h Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 23:45 ` [patch, BK-curr] nonintrusive spin-polling loop in kernel/spinlock.c Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:44 ` [patch 1/3] spinlock fix #1, *_can_lock() primitives Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:47 ` 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 16:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 17:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 17:38 ` 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
2005-01-17 7:38 ` Chris Wedgwood [this message]
2005-01-17 14:40 ` [PATCH] __get_cpu_var should use __smp_processor_id() not smp_processor_id() Ingo Molnar
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=20050117073809.GA3654@taniwha.stupidest.org \
--to=cw@f00f.org \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--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 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).