[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP29B1180134E3F1B2FDBB7696620@phx.gbl>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 19:17:17 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
josh@...htriplett.org, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
dhowells@...hat.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com,
patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 03/28] rcu: Streamline code produced by
__rcu_read_unlock()
* Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> Given some common flag combinations, particularly -Os, gcc will inline
> rcu_read_unlock_special() despite its being in an unlikely() clause.
> Use noline to prohibit this misoptimization.
noline -> noinline
>
> In addition, move the second barrier() in __rcu_read_unlock() so that
> it is not on the common-case code path. This will allow the compiler to
> generate better code for the common-case path through __rcu_read_unlock().
>
> Finally, fix up whitespace in kernel/lockdep.c to keep checkpatch happy.
This cleanup probably moved to a separate patch, but this comment line
did not follow.
Other than that, feel free to add my
Acked-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
>
> Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> kernel/rcutree_plugin.h | 12 ++++++------
> 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> index ea2e2fb..40a6db7 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> @@ -284,7 +284,7 @@ static struct list_head *rcu_next_node_entry(struct task_struct *t,
> * notify RCU core processing or task having blocked during the RCU
> * read-side critical section.
> */
> -static void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
> +static noinline void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
> {
> int empty;
> int empty_exp;
> @@ -387,11 +387,11 @@ void __rcu_read_unlock(void)
> struct task_struct *t = current;
>
> barrier(); /* needed if we ever invoke rcu_read_unlock in rcutree.c */
> - --t->rcu_read_lock_nesting;
> - barrier(); /* decrement before load of ->rcu_read_unlock_special */
> - if (t->rcu_read_lock_nesting == 0 &&
> - unlikely(ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special)))
> - rcu_read_unlock_special(t);
> + if (--t->rcu_read_lock_nesting == 0) {
> + barrier(); /* decr before ->rcu_read_unlock_special load */
> + if (unlikely(ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special)))
> + rcu_read_unlock_special(t);
> + }
> #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
> WARN_ON_ONCE(ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_read_lock_nesting) < 0);
> #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING */
> --
> 1.7.3.2
>
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
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