Messages in this thread | | | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | Subject | Re: 2.6.17-mm6 | Date | Thu, 06 Jul 2006 00:40:31 -0600 |
| |
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> writes:
> On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 23:42:00 -0600 > ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote: > >> So I suspect that we need to de-percpuify kernel_stat.irqs. > > I think so. We do: > > struct irq_desc *desc = irq_desc + irq; > > kstat_this_cpu.irqs[irq]++; > > followed immediately by > > spin_lock(&desc->lock); > > false optimisation, or what?
As an optimization I can't think of a reason.
It is kind of interesting to report that information by cpu. in /proc/interrupts (see show_interrupts).
But except for understanding system behavior I can't think of a reason for reporting that information.
It was useful information to have when debugging the irq migration code.
Eric
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |