[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 11:21:43 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] locking, rwsem: introduce basis for
down_write_killable
On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 11:17:00AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >@@ -486,21 +487,39 @@ struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_write_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> > >
> > > /* Block until there are no active lockers. */
> > > do {
> > >+ if (signal_pending_state(state, current)) {
> >
> > ^^ unlikely()?
>
> The generated code is identical after I've added unlikely. I haven't
> tried more gcc versions (mine is 5.3.1) but is this worth it?
Both signal_pending() and __fatal_signal_pending() already have an
unlikely(), which is why adding it here is superfluous.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists