Re: [PATCH 1/6] [watchdog] combine nmi_watchdog and softlockup

[Frederic Weisbecker]

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 01:50:21PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 07:27:33PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Some minor things:
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:23:58AM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS_NMI
> > > +struct perf_event_attr wd_hw_attr = {
> > > +	.type		= PERF_TYPE_HARDWARE,
> > > +	.config		= PERF_COUNT_HW_CPU_CYCLES,
> > > +	.size		= sizeof(struct perf_event_attr),
> > > +	.pinned		= 1,
> > > +	.disabled	= 1,
> > > +};
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Shouldn't it be static?
> 
> yes.  thanks.
> 
> > 
> > 
> > > +
> > > +/* Callback function for perf event subsystem */
> > > +void watchdog_overflow_callback(struct perf_event *event, int nmi,
> > > +		 struct perf_sample_data *data,
> > > +		 struct pt_regs *regs)
> > > +{
> > > +	int this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > > +	unsigned long touch_ts = per_cpu(watchdog_touch_ts, this_cpu);
> > > +	char warn = per_cpu(watchdog_warn, this_cpu);
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > You can use __get_cpu_var() here
> 
> well, I already have this_cpu and need it later, I figured I would just
> use it with per_cpu and save _get_cpu_var the work of re-running
> smp_processor_id().



This is more about code clarity in fact. per_cpu() suggests we are
fetching something from another cpu.

This is a very minor issue though.

--
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/