On (06/15/10 07:24), Arjan van de Ven wrote:
quoted text
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:19:27 +0300
> Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> > index 1d7b9bc..101e8aa 100644
> > --- a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> > +++ b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> > @@ -159,10 +159,12 @@ update_ts_time_stats(struct tick_sched *ts,
> > ktime_t now, u64 *last_update_time) ktime_t delta;
> >  
> >  	if (ts->idle_active) {
> > +		int cpu = get_cpu();
> >  		delta = ktime_sub(now, ts->idle_entrytime);
> >  		ts->idle_sleeptime = ktime_add(ts->idle_sleeptime,
> > delta);
> > -		if (nr_iowait_cpu() > 0)
> > +		if (nr_iowait_cpu(cpu) > 0)
> >  			ts->iowait_sleeptime =
> > ktime_add(ts->iowait_sleeptime, delta);
> > +		put_cpu();
> >  		ts->idle_entrytime = now;
> >  	}
> 
> 
> hmm this part is wrong
> you pick the current cpu, rather than the one denoted by ts.....
> 

Hmm. Thanks, good catch. 
Well, there is something I'm missing. How can I match given *ts and cpu 
in update_ts_time_stats (except for introducing update_ts_time_stats(..., int cpu)) ?

quoted text
> they will normally be the same, except for the case where you get your
> warning...
> (and this is also why you can't move the get_cpu() inside
> nr_iowait_cpu() ... )
> 


	Sergey