tracing: Don't assume possible cpu list have continuous numbers
"for (++cpu ; cpu < num_possible_cpus(); cpu++)" statement assumes possible cpus have continuous number - but that's a wrong assumption. Insted, cpumask_next() should be used. Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com> Cc: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@redhat.com> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> LKML-Reference: <20090310104437.A480.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
This commit is contained in:
parent
8293dd6f86
commit
bbcd306359
|
@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ static void probe_workqueue_creation(struct task_struct *wq_thread, int cpu)
|
|||
struct cpu_workqueue_stats *cws;
|
||||
unsigned long flags;
|
||||
|
||||
WARN_ON(cpu < 0 || cpu >= num_possible_cpus());
|
||||
WARN_ON(cpu < 0);
|
||||
|
||||
/* Workqueues are sometimes created in atomic context */
|
||||
cws = kzalloc(sizeof(struct cpu_workqueue_stats), GFP_ATOMIC);
|
||||
|
@ -175,12 +175,12 @@ static void *workqueue_stat_next(void *prev, int idx)
|
|||
spin_lock_irqsave(&workqueue_cpu_stat(cpu)->lock, flags);
|
||||
if (list_is_last(&prev_cws->list, &workqueue_cpu_stat(cpu)->list)) {
|
||||
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&workqueue_cpu_stat(cpu)->lock, flags);
|
||||
for (++cpu ; cpu < num_possible_cpus(); cpu++) {
|
||||
ret = workqueue_stat_start_cpu(cpu);
|
||||
if (ret)
|
||||
return ret;
|
||||
}
|
||||
do {
|
||||
cpu = cpumask_next(cpu, cpu_possible_mask);
|
||||
if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
|
||||
return NULL;
|
||||
} while (!(ret = workqueue_stat_start_cpu(cpu)));
|
||||
return ret;
|
||||
}
|
||||
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&workqueue_cpu_stat(cpu)->lock, flags);
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue