Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-56813-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240206095902.56406-1-yaoma@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20240206095902.56406-2-yaoma@linux.alibaba.com> <CAD=FV=V+mcBdeq8mmH0h41byUtL-G1zFmZQtj341ubwqyPxD1A@mail.gmail.com>
 <1cdff175-37d8-4223-a3ca-07699a5f8a6c@linux.alibaba.com>
In-Reply-To: <1cdff175-37d8-4223-a3ca-07699a5f8a6c@linux.alibaba.com>
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2024 09:13:51 -0800
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=VRNc=dngP5ac45yNrSh06VdE=8iuRVbNN40hgVaXK7sw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 1/3] watchdog/softlockup: low-overhead detection of interrupt
To: Bitao Hu <yaoma@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, pmladek@suse.com, kernelfans@gmail.com, 
	liusong@linux.alibaba.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 10:18=E2=80=AFPM Bitao Hu <yaoma@linux.alibaba.com> =
wrote:
>
> >> +static void print_cpustat(void)
> >> +{
> >> +       int i, group;
> >> +       u8 tail =3D __this_cpu_read(cpustat_tail);
> >
> > Sorry for not noticing before, but why are you using
> > "__this_cpu_read()" instead of "this_cpu_read()"? In other words, why
> > do you need the double-underscore version everywhere? I don't think
> > you do, do you?
> I also struggled with which version of the operation to use. The one
> without double-underscores provides preemption/interrupt protection,
> but in watchdog.c, the version with double-underscores is used. I
> analyzed that it is also safe to use the version without
> preemption/interrupt protection in my code, so to maintain consistency
> with watchdog.c, I ues the version with double-underscores.
>
> Is my approach reasonable? If not, I will switch to using the
> non-underscored version.

Ah, OK. I hadn't followed the macros all the way through to the
arch-specific defines and I didn't see the preemption disable. OK,
what you have seems fine to me, especially since the double-underscore
version still has double-checks that preemption is disabled. Thanks
for explaining!

-Doug