Re: [PATCH 3/3] [UDP6]: Counter increment on BH mode

[Ingo Molnar]

* Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Ob Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 12:17:23AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > 
> > Never mind, we already have that in local_t and as Alexey correctly
> > points out, USER is still going to be the expensive variant with the
> > preempt_disable (well until BH gets threaded).  So how about this patch?
> 
> I didn't hear any objections so here is the patch again.
> 
> [SNMP]: Fix SNMP counters with PREEMPT
> 
> The SNMP macros use raw_smp_processor_id() in process context which is 
> illegal because the process may be preempted and then migrated to 
> another CPU.

nit: please use 'invalid' instead of 'illegal'.

> This patch makes it use get_cpu/put_cpu to disable preemption.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> -	(per_cpu_ptr(mib[1], raw_smp_processor_id())->mibs[field]++)
> +	do { \
> +		per_cpu_ptr(mib[1], get_cpu())->mibs[field]++; \
> +		put_cpu(); \
> +	} while (0)

> -	(per_cpu_ptr(mib[1], raw_smp_processor_id())->mibs[field] += addend)
> +	do { \
> +		per_cpu_ptr(mib[1], get_cpu())->mibs[field] += addend; \
> +		put_cpu(); \
> +	} while (0)

we could perhaps introduce stat_smp_processor_id(), which signals that 
the CPU id is used for statistical purposes and does not have to be 
exact? In any case, your patch looks good too.

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/