[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E602DF2.809@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 09:14:26 +0800
From: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 1/2] irq_work, Use llist in irq_work
On 09/01/2011 05:57 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 16:56 +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
>> Something as follow with llist_empty() seems not work.
>>
>> empty = llist_empty(irq_work_list);
>> llist_add(&work->llnode, irq_work_list);
>> if (empty)
>> arch_irq_work_raise();
>>
>> Because irq_work IRQ handler or timer IRQ handler may be executed just
>> before "llist_add(&work->llnode, irq_work_list)", so that, although
>> "empty == false", arch_irq_work_raise() still should be executed.
>
> Right, I was thinking:
>
> llist_add(&work->llist, irq_work_list);
> if (llist_empty(&work->llist))
> arch_irq_work_raise();
>
> And then ran into the difference between llist_node and llist_head. Now
> we could sort that by introducing llist_next() and write it like:
>
> if (!llist_next(&work->list))
> arch_irq_work_raise();
>
This reveals some implementation details of llist. But it will reveal
some implementation details to make llist_add() return whether list is
empty before adding as Mathieu pointed out. So I think something like
this or just to check work->list->next should be acceptable.
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