Commit 12aa2587 authored by Muchun Song's avatar Muchun Song Committed by Peter Zijlstra

sched/cpuacct: Use __this_cpu_add() instead of this_cpu_ptr()

The cpuacct_charge() and cpuacct_account_field() are called with
rq->lock held, and this means preemption(and IRQs) are indeed
disabled, so it is safe to use __this_cpu_*() to allow for better
code-generation.
Signed-off-by: default avatarMuchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarPeter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200507031039.32615-1-songmuchun@bytedance.com
parent 7d148be6
...@@ -347,7 +347,7 @@ void cpuacct_charge(struct task_struct *tsk, u64 cputime) ...@@ -347,7 +347,7 @@ void cpuacct_charge(struct task_struct *tsk, u64 cputime)
rcu_read_lock(); rcu_read_lock();
for (ca = task_ca(tsk); ca; ca = parent_ca(ca)) for (ca = task_ca(tsk); ca; ca = parent_ca(ca))
this_cpu_ptr(ca->cpuusage)->usages[index] += cputime; __this_cpu_add(ca->cpuusage->usages[index], cputime);
rcu_read_unlock(); rcu_read_unlock();
} }
...@@ -363,7 +363,7 @@ void cpuacct_account_field(struct task_struct *tsk, int index, u64 val) ...@@ -363,7 +363,7 @@ void cpuacct_account_field(struct task_struct *tsk, int index, u64 val)
rcu_read_lock(); rcu_read_lock();
for (ca = task_ca(tsk); ca != &root_cpuacct; ca = parent_ca(ca)) for (ca = task_ca(tsk); ca != &root_cpuacct; ca = parent_ca(ca))
this_cpu_ptr(ca->cpustat)->cpustat[index] += val; __this_cpu_add(ca->cpustat->cpustat[index], val);
rcu_read_unlock(); rcu_read_unlock();
} }
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment