Re: fix BUG: using smp_processor_id() in touch_nmi_watchdog andtouch_softlockup_watchdog

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 10:12 -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 03:46:58PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > I don't see a problem with the patch, but my low level understanding of
> > > the __get_cpu_var vs. per_cpu isn't very strong.
> > 
> > __get_cpu_var() gets you the value on the current cpu, per_cpu() takes a
> > cpu argument.
> 
> Well I know that much. :-)  It seems that __get_cpu_var depends on
> preemption being disabled whereas per_cpu does not?  Though for some
> reason I thought __get_cpu_var would be more atomic when it grabbed the
> current cpu such that you wouldn't need to disable preemption.  Guess not.

Indeed, it can't be implemented atomically on all smp systems, hence its
really nothing other than a 'convenient' short for per_cpu(foo,
smp_processor_id()).
--
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/