On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 16:28 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > * Trond Myklebust ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 12:49 -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > > > > > > > Index: linux-2.6/fs/nfs/iostat.h > > > > > =================================================================== > > > > > --- linux-2.6.orig/fs/nfs/iostat.h 2007-11-15 21:17:24.391404458 > > > > > -0800 > > > > > +++ linux-2.6/fs/nfs/iostat.h 2007-11-15 21:25:33.167654066 -0800 > > > > > @@ -123,7 +123,7 @@ static inline void nfs_inc_server_stats( > > > > > int cpu; > > > > > > > > > > cpu = get_cpu(); > > > > > - iostats = per_cpu_ptr(server->io_stats, cpu); > > > > > + iostats = CPU_PTR(server->io_stats, cpu); > > > > > iostats->events[stat] ++; > > > > > > > > Is there a way to change this into a CPU_ADD ? > > > > > > Yes I must have missed that. > > > > > > Could be > > > > > > CPU_INC(server->io_stats->events[stat]); > > > > > > > > > > > > put_cpu_no_resched(); > > > > > > > > Why put_cpu_no_resched here ? > > > > > > We do not want to reschedule here? We may have already disabled > > > interrupts > > > or some such thing. > > > > Some of these statistics are updated from inside a spinlocked > > environment, hence the put_no_resched(). > > > > The we could use __get_cpu_var instead ? (since we know preemption is > _always_ disabled when we are called) ?
We don't know that. I said that _some_ of these statistics are updated in that way. Cheers Trond - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
