[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090401090433.GA27865@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 11:04:33 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15] perf_counter: unify and fix delayed counter
wakeup
* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 16:45 +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > Peter Zijlstra writes:
> >
> > > +void perf_counter_wakeup(struct perf_counter *counter)
> > > +{
> > > + struct perf_mmap_data *data;
> > > +
> > > + rcu_read_lock();
> > > + data = rcu_dereference(counter->data);
> > > + if (data) {
> > > + (void)atomic_xchg(&data->wakeup, POLL_IN);
> >
> > Really just a nit, but how is this atomic_xchg any different from
> > atomic_set(&data->wakeup, POLL_IN) aside from being slower?
>
> Probably, I got my head in a twist, atomic_set() is simply an
> unlocked assignment (although volatile), and I read the value
> using a locked xchg().
>
> I wasn't sure how these two would interact and so I chickened out
> :-)
The fact that you needed to use an ugly cast to silence the compiler
should have told you that we kernel developers never chicken out! :)
(And if we do, it's called an orderly tactical retreat.)
Ingo
--
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