[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1297326755.32714.0.camel@yhuang-dev>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 16:32:35 +0800
From: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: RE: [RFC 1/2] lib, Make gen_pool memory allocator lockless
On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 03:03 +0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
> +static int set_bits_ll(unsigned long *addr, unsigned long mask_to_set)
> +{
> + unsigned long val, nval;
> +
> + nval = *addr;
> + do {
> + val = nval;
> + if (val & mask_to_set)
> + return -EBUSY;
> + } while ((nval = cmpxchg(addr, val, val | mask_to_set)) != val);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
>
> Spin loops like this should have a call to cpu_relax(), shouldn't they?
Thanks! Sounds reasonable to me. Will change it.
Best Regards,
Huang Ying
--
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