From 12aa2587388de6697fd2e585ae6a90f70249540b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Muchun Song Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 11:10:39 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] 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: Muchun Song Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200507031039.32615-1-songmuchun@bytedance.com --- kernel/sched/cpuacct.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpuacct.c b/kernel/sched/cpuacct.c index 9fbb10383434..6448b0438ffb 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/cpuacct.c +++ b/kernel/sched/cpuacct.c @@ -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(); }