[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1335480667-8301-2-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 19:51:05 -0300
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To: <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<devel@...nvz.org>, Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>
Subject: [PATCH v4 1/3] make jump_labels wait while updates are in place
In mem cgroup, we need to guarantee that two concurrent updates
of the jump_label interface wait for each other. IOW, we can't have
other updates returning while the first one is still patching the
kernel around, otherwise we'll race.
I believe this is something that can fit well in the static branch
API, without noticeable disadvantages:
* in the common case, it will be a quite simple lock/unlock operation
* Every context that calls static_branch_slow* already expects to be
in sleeping context because it will mutex_lock the unlikely case.
* static_key_slow_inc is not expected to be called in any fast path,
otherwise it would be expected to have quite a different name. Therefore
the mutex + atomic combination instead of just an atomic should not kill
us.
Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
CC: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
CC: Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
CC: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
CC: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>
---
kernel/jump_label.c | 21 +++++++++++----------
1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/jump_label.c b/kernel/jump_label.c
index 4304919..5d09cb4 100644
--- a/kernel/jump_label.c
+++ b/kernel/jump_label.c
@@ -57,17 +57,16 @@ static void jump_label_update(struct static_key *key, int enable);
void static_key_slow_inc(struct static_key *key)
{
+ jump_label_lock();
if (atomic_inc_not_zero(&key->enabled))
- return;
+ goto out;
- jump_label_lock();
- if (atomic_read(&key->enabled) == 0) {
- if (!jump_label_get_branch_default(key))
- jump_label_update(key, JUMP_LABEL_ENABLE);
- else
- jump_label_update(key, JUMP_LABEL_DISABLE);
- }
+ if (!jump_label_get_branch_default(key))
+ jump_label_update(key, JUMP_LABEL_ENABLE);
+ else
+ jump_label_update(key, JUMP_LABEL_DISABLE);
atomic_inc(&key->enabled);
+out:
jump_label_unlock();
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(static_key_slow_inc);
@@ -75,10 +74,11 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(static_key_slow_inc);
static void __static_key_slow_dec(struct static_key *key,
unsigned long rate_limit, struct delayed_work *work)
{
- if (!atomic_dec_and_mutex_lock(&key->enabled, &jump_label_mutex)) {
+ jump_label_lock();
+ if (atomic_dec_and_test(&key->enabled)) {
WARN(atomic_read(&key->enabled) < 0,
"jump label: negative count!\n");
- return;
+ goto out;
}
if (rate_limit) {
@@ -90,6 +90,7 @@ static void __static_key_slow_dec(struct static_key *key,
else
jump_label_update(key, JUMP_LABEL_ENABLE);
}
+out:
jump_label_unlock();
}
--
1.7.7.6
--
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