On 12/5/18 11:03 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote: > On Wed, Dec 05 2018 at 12:54pm -0500, > Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 12/5/18 10:49 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 05 2018 at 12:30pm -0500, >>> Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> There's also no need to pass in the cpu, if we're not running with >>>> preempt disabled already we have a problem. >>> >>> Why should this be any different than the part_stat_* interfaces? >>> __part_stat_add(), part_stat_read(), etc also use >>> per_cpu_ptr((part)->dkstats, (cpu) accessors. >> >> Maybe audit which ones actually need it? To answer the specific question, >> it's silly to pass in the cpu, if we're pinned already. That's true >> both programatically, but also for someone reading the code. > > I understand you'd like to avoid excess interface baggage. But seems to > me we'd be better off being consistent, when extending the percpu > portion of block core stats, and then do an incremental to clean it all > up. The incremental should be done first in that case, it'd be silly to introduce something only to do a cleanup right after. -- Jens Axboe
