iv/linux
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

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

Browse Source 
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: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200507031039.32615-1-songmuchun@bytedance.com
This commit is contained in:
Muchun Song 2020-05-07 11:10:39 +08:00 committed by Peter Zijlstra
parent 7d148be69e
commit 12aa258738
1 changed files with 2 additions and 2 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

4
kernel/sched/cpuacct.c
View File

@ -347,7 +347,7 @@ void cpuacct_charge(struct task_struct *tsk, u64 cputime)
rcu_read_lock();
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();
}
@ -363,7 +363,7 @@ void cpuacct_account_field(struct task_struct *tsk, int index, u64 val)
rcu_read_lock();
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();
}