ring-buffer: Replace this_cpu_*() with __this_cpu_*()
commit 80a9b64e upstream. It has come to my attention that this_cpu_read/write are horrible on architectures other than x86. Worse yet, they actually disable preemption or interrupts! This caused some unexpected tracing results on ARM. 101.356868: preempt_count_add <-ring_buffer_lock_reserve 101.356870: preempt_count_sub <-ring_buffer_lock_reserve The ring_buffer_lock_reserve has recursion protection that requires accessing a per cpu variable. But since preempt_disable() is traced, it too got traced while accessing the variable that is suppose to prevent recursion like this. The generic version of this_cpu_read() and write() are: #define this_cpu_generic_read(pcp) \ ({ typeof(pcp) ret__; \ preempt_disable(); \ ret__ = *this_cpu_ptr(&(pcp)); \ preempt_enable(); \ ret__; \ }) #define this_cpu_generic_to_op(pcp, val, op) \ do { \ unsigned long flags; \ raw_local_irq_save(flags); \ *__this_cpu_ptr(&(pcp)) op val; \ raw_local_irq_restore(flags); \ } while (0) Which is unacceptable for locations that know they are within preempt disabled or interrupt disabled locations. Paul McKenney stated that __this_cpu_() versions produce much better code on other architectures than this_cpu_() does, if we know that the call is done in a preempt disabled location. I also changed the recursive_unlock() to use two local variables instead of accessing the per_cpu variable twice. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20150317114411.GE3589@linux.vnet.ibm.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20150317104038.312e73d1@gandalf.local.homeAcked-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com> Reported-by: Uwe Kleine-Koenig <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> Tested-by: Uwe Kleine-Koenig <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment