From bbcd3063597a3824357cd83c501c2a2aa21ef37b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: KOSAKI Motohiro Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 10:49:53 +0900 Subject: [PATCH] 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 Cc: Lai Jiangshan Cc: Steven Rostedt Cc: Frederic Weisbecker LKML-Reference: <20090310104437.A480.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar --- kernel/trace/trace_workqueue.c | 14 +++++++------- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_workqueue.c b/kernel/trace/trace_workqueue.c index 46c8dc8..739fdac 100644 --- a/kernel/trace/trace_workqueue.c +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_workqueue.c @@ -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; - } - return NULL; + 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); -- 1.8.2.3