On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 11:34:13PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> @@ -2020,12 +2050,29 @@ static void intel_pmu_cpu_starting(int cpu)
>>
>> if (x86_pmu.lbr_sel_map)
>> cpuc->lbr_sel = &cpuc->shared_regs->regs[EXTRA_REG_LBR];
>> +
>> + if (x86_pmu.flags & PMU_FL_EXCL_CNTRS) {
>> + for_each_cpu(i, topology_thread_cpumask(cpu)) {
>> + struct intel_excl_cntrs *c;
>> +
>> + c = per_cpu(cpu_hw_events, i).excl_cntrs;
>> + if (c && c->core_id == core_id) {
>> + cpuc->kfree_on_online[1] = cpuc->excl_cntrs;
>> + cpuc->excl_cntrs = c;
>> + cpuc->excl_thread_id = 1;
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + }
>> + cpuc->excl_cntrs->core_id = core_id;
>> + cpuc->excl_cntrs->refcnt++;
>> + }
>> }
>
> This hard assumes theres only ever 2 threads, which is true and I
> suppose more in arch/x86 will come apart the moment Intel makes a chip
> with more, still, do we have topology_thread_id() or so to cure this?
I assume your comment is relative to kfree_on_online[].
This code is specific to the HT bug, so yes, it assumes 2 threads and that
only one entry of the two excl_cntrs structs needs to be freed.
Doing otherwise, would require a list and will never be used to its full
potential.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
