[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CDBCCC8.4030104@windriver.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 19:00:24 +0800
From: DDD <dongdong.deng@...driver.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: dzickus@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: avoid calling arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace() at
the same time on SMP
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * DDD <dongdong.deng@...driver.com> wrote:
>
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> * Dongdong Deng <dongdong.deng@...driver.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +static int backtrace_flag;
>>>> + if (cmpxchg(&backtrace_flag, 0, 1) != 0)
>>> Sorry to be a PITA, but i asked for test_and_set() because that's
>>> the simplest primitive. cmpxchg() semantics is not nearly as
>>> obvious and people regularly get it wrong :-/
>> As the 'backtrace_flag' could be accessed by multi-cpus on SMP at
>> the same time, I use cmpxchg() for getting a atomic/memory barrier
>> operation for 'backtrace_flag' variable.
>>
>> If we use test_and_set, maybe we need smp_wmb() after test_and_set.
>> (If I wrong, please correct me, thanks. :-) )
>
> No, test_and_set_bit() is SMP safe and is an implicit barrier as well - so no
> smp_wmb() or other barriers are needed.
Yep, the spin_lock of test_and_set_bit() could make sure that.
Thank you very much,
I will send out the new patch quickly. :-)
Dongdong
>
> Thanks,
>
> 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