On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:00:12PM +0300, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
quoted text
> Hello,
> 
> Per our previous conversation:
> 
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Fair enough, although strictly speaking this should be done in a
> > separate and later patch.
> > 
> 
> 
> Avoid double smp_processor_id() call in __touch_watchdog (smp_processor_id() 
> itself and later call in __get_cpu_var())
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>

Thanks!  I'll apply it.

Cheers,
Don
quoted text
> 
> ---
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/watchdog.c b/kernel/watchdog.c
> index 7f9c3c5..03d97c5 100644
> --- a/kernel/watchdog.c
> +++ b/kernel/watchdog.c
> @@ -116,8 +116,7 @@ static unsigned long get_sample_period(void)
>  static void __touch_watchdog(void)
>  {
>  	int this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
> -
> -	__get_cpu_var(watchdog_touch_ts) = get_timestamp(this_cpu);
> +	per_cpu(watchdog_touch_ts, this_cpu) = get_timestamp(this_cpu);
>  }
>  
>  void touch_softlockup_watchdog(void)
> 
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/