Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 5 Feb 2008 23:14:52 +0200 | From | Pekka Paalanen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86 mmiotrace: fix relay-buffer-full flag for SMP |
| |
On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 21:44:07 +0100 Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com> wrote:
> Pekka Paalanen a écrit : > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/mmiotrace/mmio-mod.c b/arch/x86/kernel/mmiotrace/mmio-mod.c > > index 82ae920..f492b65 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/mmiotrace/mmio-mod.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/mmiotrace/mmio-mod.c > > @@ -47,9 +48,13 @@ struct trap_reason { > > int active_traces; > > }; > > > > +/* Accessed per-cpu. */ > > static struct trap_reason pf_reason[NR_CPUS]; > > static struct mm_io_header_rw cpu_trace[NR_CPUS]; > > > > +/* Access to this is not per-cpu. */ > > +static atomic_t dropped[NR_CPUS]; > > + > > Please dont introduce NR_CPUS new arrays, since people are working hard to zap > them from kernel. > > You probably can use a per_cpu variable ?
Yes, it would probably be more appropriate to use DEFINE_PER_CPU() for 'pf_reason' and 'cpu_trace', but I wasn't sure since the examples of DEFINE_PER_CPU I saw always had integers or pointers, not whole structs. Is it okay for whole structs?
'dropped' on the other hand is not accessed in per-cpu style, any cpu may access any element. DEFINE_PER_CPU is not valid here, is it?
Thanks for the note, I knew I should fix that at some point.
-- Pekka Paalanen http://www.iki.fi/pq/ -- 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/
| |