[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080816210439.GB5151@martell.zuzino.mipt.ru>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 01:04:39 +0400
From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: torvalds@...l.org, akpm@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] De-macro spin_trylock_irq, spin_trylock_irqsave,
write_trylock_irqsave
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 03:46:00PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > 1) de-macro, remove ({ usages as side-effect,
> > 2) change calling convention to not accept "flags" by value -- trylock
> > functions can modify them, so by-value is misleading, and number of users
> > is relatively low.
> > 3) de-macro spin_trylock_irq() for a change.
>
> > +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> > @@ -1174,7 +1174,7 @@ static void resched_cpu(int cpu)
> > struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> > unsigned long flags;
> >
> > - if (!spin_trylock_irqsave(&rq->lock, flags))
> > + if (!spin_trylock_irqsave(&rq->lock, &flags))
> > return;
>
> hm, i dont really like this assymetric calling convention to other
> locking primitives that all take 'flags' as a value.
> [spin_lock_irqsave(), etc.]
>
> so what's the point really? It sure does not make actual usage more
> readable.
Only slightly, reader is hinted that flags can be changed, otherwise
they will be passed by value.
> If we switched _all_ primitives to use flags as a pointer,
> that might make sense, in theory.
We can't really, and I don't propose that: ~8700 usages of
spin_lock_irqsave, ~1300 usages of local_irq_save. However for code
which has small number of users, why not?
The prehistory of this patch is that I'm deeply in spinlock and
irqflags.h headers for clean irq_flags_t conversion and overall
implession is that they're horrible.
Just the joke with local_irq_enable() defined via raw_local_irq_enable()
and several lines below in the opposite order.
The patch is about slightly cleaner code close to C. ;-)
> (but it would also be hugely invasive,
> with not much upside with tons of downside like years of migration
> fallout and having to rewrite hundreds of kernel hacking books ;-) )
I want my money back for scheduler chapter from "Understanding the Linux Kernel"!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists