lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Sep]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [pchecks v1 2/4] Use raw cpu ops for calls that would trigger with checks

* Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com> wrote:

> These location triggered during testing with KVM.
>
> These are fetches without preemption off where we judged that
> to be more performance efficient or where other means of
> providing synchronization (BH handling) are available.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
>
> Index: linux/include/linux/topology.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/include/linux/topology.h 2013-09-12 13:26:29.216103951 -0500
> +++ linux/include/linux/topology.h 2013-09-12 13:41:30.762358687 -0500
> @@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ DECLARE_PER_CPU(int, numa_node);
> /* Returns the number of the current Node. */
> static inline int numa_node_id(void)
> {
> - return __this_cpu_read(numa_node);
> + return raw_cpu_read(numa_node);
> }
> #endif
>
> @@ -239,7 +239,7 @@ static inline void set_numa_mem(int node
> /* Returns the number of the nearest Node with memory */
> static inline int numa_mem_id(void)
> {
> - return __this_cpu_read(_numa_mem_);
> + return raw_cpu_read(_numa_mem_);
> }

These are generic primitives used in quite a few places and it can easily
be a bug to use numa_node_id() in a preemptible section - and this patch
would hide that fact.

So the correct way to do it is to have checking in these and to introduce
raw_numa_node_id()/raw_numa_mem_id() and change eventual KVM (and any
other) preemptible-section use of numa_node_id() to raw_numa_node_id() and
explain why it's safe to do it.

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-09-24 09:41    [W:0.110 / U:0.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site