On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 09:54:46AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 04:19:19PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > > +DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long [MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS], lock_class_ops);
> >
> > > @@ -179,9 +181,30 @@ DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct lockdep_stats, lockdep_stats);
> > > } \
> > > __total; \
> > > })
> > > +
> > > +static inline void debug_class_ops_inc(struct lock_class *class)
> > > +{
> > > + int idx;
> > > +
> > > + idx = class - lock_classes;
> > > + __this_cpu_inc(lock_class_ops[idx]);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline unsigned long debug_class_ops_read(struct lock_class
> > > *class)
> > > +{
> > > + int idx, cpu;
> > > + unsigned long ops = 0;
> > > +
> > > + idx = class - lock_classes;
> > > + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
> > > + ops += per_cpu(lock_class_ops[idx], cpu);
> > > + return ops;
> > > +}
> >
> > Would it make sense to stick that in struct lockdep_stats ?
> >
> > A little something like:
> >
> > struct lockdep_stats {
> > /* ... */
> > int lock_class_ops[MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS];
> > };
>
> Did you shrink the 'long' to 'int' intentionally?
nah, was because all of lockdep_stats is int and I didn't pay much
attention.
