Andrew,
I am slowly going through your excellent feedback and I am making
the changes suggested. I will reply to all your questions.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 03:40:57PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 01:05:58 -0700
> Stephane Eranian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > ...
> >
> > +irqreturn_t pfm_interrupt_handler(int irq, void *arg, struct pt_regs *regs)
> > +{
> > + u64 start_cycles, total_cycles;
> > +
> > + get_cpu();
> > +
> > + start_cycles = pfm_arch_get_itc();
> > +
> > + __pfm_interrupt_handler(regs);
> > +
> > + total_cycles = pfm_arch_get_itc();
> > +
> > + __get_cpu_var(pfm_stats).pfm_ovfl_intr_cycles += total_cycles - start_cycles;
> > +
> > + put_cpu_no_resched();
> > + return IRQ_HANDLED;
> > +}
>
> If this code is only ever called from interrupt context then I suspect the
> get_cpu() is not needed. __get_cpu_var() requires that preemption be
> disabled (so we cannot wander over to a different CPU midway) but IRQ
> code doesn't get preempted.
Yes, this function is ONLY called on PMU interrupt. I will remove the useless
get_cpu()/put_cpu() code then.
Thanks.
--
-Stephane
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
